The theme of my blog, as the title may suggest, is about opinions. I want to incorporate this theme by creating a debate; a battle of the minds. Each post will have a main topic that I will present both sides of the argument. From there, you can draw your own conclusions and leave a comment about what was said, or even bring up some new points for discussion. Let's begin!
The reauthorization of the HIgher Education Act: Obama's plan to make college more affordable
What this is: President Obama took a road trip to a few colleges in New York and Pennsylvania to pitch to the schools his proposal. The First Lady and he know a few things about student loan and how hard it is to pay them off, therefore this topic hits home for him. His plan is to evaluate schools based on criteria such as the graduation rate, the number of low-income students in attendance, the success rate of the college's graduates, and its efforts to keep tuition low. Based on that evaltuation will determine what "rate" a college receives. Those colleges with a higher rating will receive more government funding. So the incentive is to push colleges to work harder and keep student debt low. However, this all depends on the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
From the left:
Since hearing the proposal, many educators have spoken out, singing the praises of this proposal. Many claim they have been using this concept for years. For example, one school mentioned in one of the articles, Rochester Institute University, is going to give out $141 million in student aid this year alone, which is a third of the college's tuition. LSU president F. King Alexander believes the government has a right to push colleges by using additional funding as an incentive. From the two articles I read, there are a few positive points the educators seem to agree on. First, they point out that our economy cannot handle large student loans continuing to go unpaid, which largely depends on the ability of a graduate to obtain a job. Using the success rate of graduates finding a job as part of the rating would push colleges to help graduates get successful jobs lined up. Secondly, it would push colleges to reach out to provide funding for low-income students. Remember the number of low-income students in attendance will be a factor of the rate a school receives. And finally, if the act was to get approved, the rating system would help students and parents decided which college is the best decision for their money.
From the right:
On the other side of the argument, two articles obtained from American Thinker voiced their opposition concerning the plan. Their first concern with the plan was basing the rating on the graduation rates. Jim Yardley, the author of one of the articles, says there are studies that show that schools with high performance expectations sets up minority students up to fail. In addition, the rating could not factor in the success rate of students who never finished college. A good example of this would be Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. The next issue was the number of low-income served. How would the government operationally define the what a low-income student has to consist of? The authors feel that it would be hard to see the whole picture. A student may not received Pell Grant but they may receive scholarships from other places, helping them to attend college. By recruiting low-income students could result in less funding for other needs in the college, causing tuition to rise regardless of the attempt to keep it down. The last is measuring a student's "success." How can the government compare a mechanical who graduated from technical college and a lawyer from an Ivy League school? Perhaps the mechanic obtains a better paying job five years down the road. At what year do you measure when a graduate reaches their prime? Robert Weissberg, the author of the other article, offers up his own solution, called OWN (Obama's worst nightmare). His plan is to rid the colleges of frills such as student activities, free health clinics, and courses such as gender and women studies.
Who is right? Who is wrong? Or are they both wrong? The hard part of a debate, for me anyways, is finding where to draw that ethical line of right and wrong. Both sides bring up some valid points and as college students, this topic has called our number. So, what's your opinion?
Resources:
On the left:
- Obama's college proposal received warmly by local educators-Brian Tumulty and James Goodman Staff writers
- Alexander supports Obama's plans for higher education-Gordon Brillon
- Our president plans to 'rate' colleges-Jim Yardley
- Obama's crackpot scheme to make college 'more affordable'-Robert Weissberg
