their business or even if it should be considered a business in the first place.
One could make the argument that higher education should be a utility with the same rules and regulations placed on the brick and mortar utilities such as energy and water.
And perhaps the people crying the loudest to inject a little supply and demand into a system that makes demands while ignoring the supply being made by the highly educated pro-charter public school system should be looking instead at higher education. But I guess there isn't any manufactured enemy like a strong Teachers Union to emasculate so where is the fun in that...
The way our "greatest country on the face of the earth" crowd looks at any problem is that it has to be a defect of character when people fail to understand what is actually going on.
Read this example from Saturday's New York Times and tell me there isn't blame to be placed all around on this sad but expanding tale of the inflated worth of a liberal arts education.
"Like many middle-class families, Cortney Munna and her mother began the college selection process with a grim determination. They would do whatever they could to get Cortney into the best possible college, and they maintained a blind faith that the investment would be worth it.
Today, however, Ms. Munna, a 26-year-old graduate of New York University, has nearly $100,000 in student loan debt from her four years in college, and affording the full monthly payments would be a struggle. For much of the time since her 2005 graduation, she’s been enrolled in night school, which allows her to defer loan payments.
This is not a long-term solution, because the interest on the loans continues to pile up. So in an eerie echo of the mortgage crisis, tens of thousands of people like Ms. Munna are facing a reckoning. They and their families made borrowing decisions based more on emotion than reason, much as subprime borrowers assumed the value of their houses would always go up."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/your-money/student-loans/29money.html?scp=1&sq=placing%20the%20blame&st=cseYou really need to read the whole story to get what I am talking about.
To me it's simple; by allowing third party lenders to protect themselves from financial culpability, student loans are exempted from most bankruptcy law, there is no incentive for third party lenders to put any restrictions on the availability of student loans. And since the universities are guarded against any kind of loss, they get their cash up front, why should they worry. They too are culpable in this trickle down ponzi scheme. And lets not forget the people who take out the loans based more on a dream of down the road financial success than the reality of economic struggle.
Our higher education system is broken. And it will impede the recovery as more and more graduating students are forced to continue paying for an education that in many cases has no economic value by putting off the large ticket items those entering the work force traditionally purchased.
The bottom line, we must somehow connect the true value of an education to the cost of that education so that "religious and women’s studies" majors, like the subject of the NYT story, have a better grasp on the reality waiting at the end of their 4 year journey.
And we must do this in a way that people will still find someway to study the arts and less lucrative salaried degrees because we, as a society, cannot afford to scrimp on what makes our culture whole.