higher education

This week I again referenced the hope that the DCCC has to ensure young voters vote for democratic candidates this November. It seems members of Congress want to get reelected, want young voters to vote for them, but members of the US Senate evidently have little interest in casting votes that help young people.

The White House's plan would help students who too often face high interest rates, miserable expectations to repay, and in the end students can end up paying for school three times over. But according to the New York Times bankers say a giant government takeover is afoot

"that could put thousands of people out of work at private lending centers around the country at a time when unemployment is hovering around 10 percent."

So the banks are throwing down. The Times reports that Sallie Mae, the giant student loan lender, has spent $8 million in lobbying the US Senate to prevent the White House's call to overhaul the student loan industry. This is more than double what they spent last year.

"House and Senate aides say that the administration’s plan faces a far tougher fight than it did last fall, when the House passed its version. The fierce attacks from the lending industry, the Massachusetts election that cost the Democrats their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and the fight over a health care bill have all damaged the chances for the student loan measure . . .

...Political action committees for the lenders and company employees made $2.1 million in political contributions last year, with the money split evenly among Democrat and Republican candidates, the data showed. Sallie Mae’s PAC alone made $194,000 in donations.

Some 10 million students got loans last year to help pay for their educations, and there is disagreement about whether having the federal government take over virtually the entire lending program would help or hurt them. Private lenders warn that students may default on their loans more often because they will get less counseling; the Obama administration says students will benefit from more grants and expanded educational programs. . . "

Less counseling? Seriously? This is their concern? The banking industry just worries about young people, and really wants to make sure they're being taken care of. Yeah, right...

"I would think that the White House would prefer not to make senators vote for something that is going to be very unpopular in their states — and for good reason,” said Jamie Gorelick, a former Clinton administration official who is now lobbying for the lending industry."

Somehow, I think having Senators going back to their districts and explaining to their constituents that they chose their state's young people and their future over the multi-billion dollar student loan industry is more of a win for them. But it wouldn't surprise me if this were to pass Sallie Mae then turned around to spend millions on ads saying they voted against the banker's jobs. Gotta love the Washington BS game.

Email your Senators today and demand they vote in the interest of our nation's youth and not the bankers.

Interestingly enough this story appears the same day The Hill posts a piece reporting that funding for higher education is really good for job creation.

It says, among other things that community colleges specifically can help train youth in some of the most sought after fields such as health care and credentials in engineering which can yield good starting salaries and great futures.

A new report, "Graduated Success: Sustainable Economic Opportunity Through One- and Two-Year Credentials" says

"forty-three percent of those who hold a certificate as their highest degree earn a median annual salary that is higher than that earned by someone holding an associates degree. And twenty-seven percent of those holding a community college certificate as their highest degree earn a median annual salary that is higher than someone holding a bachelors degree. Nearly a third (31 percent) of associates degree holders earn more than someone holding a bachelors degree. . .

. . .The salaries earned by those with community college certificates in engineering and health care ($47,000 and $46,000 respectively), are close to what bachelors degree holders in the social or natural sciences earn, and are actually more than what someone holding a bachelors degree in education earns."

So while the banking industry would have voters believe supporting youth is a crushing blow to the job industry, in reality we're helping more students than NOT helping them.

President Obama's focus on the economy is exactly what Millennials (Americans born between 1982-2003) want to hear. Their generation is experiencing Depression levels of unemployment, higher than any other generation. They deeply believe that the path to a better job leads through a better education.

That’s why any Millennial jobs program must begin with the steps outlined in the President’s speech—a revitalization of community colleges, increased Pell Grants and a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college. Those who have graduated from college with unprecedented debt will particularly welcome the President's call to limit the amount they have to repay in any given year based on their income with complete forgiveness after twenty years or only half that time if the engage in public service. And the President's call for a small business hiring tax credit should help give Millennials a chance to earn some money as they enter the toughest job market any generation has faced in twenty-five years.

Equally important are his administration’s K-12 education reforms that have attracted bi-partisan support from the parents of Millennials all across the country.

Now the Congress needs to step up to the plate and deliver on Obama's proposals. If Republicans continue to follow their "just say no" approach, they risk losing an entire generation of voters. But Democrats must prove they can govern, and deal with Millennial concerns when they do, if they hope to generate enough enthusiasm from young voters in 2010 to provide Democrats the type of victory Barack Obama enjoyed in 2008. Like First Lady Michelle Obama did during the State of the Union speech, they should put Millennials in the best seats in the House and keep their future uppermost in their minds as they fashion a new economy for these young Americans. It’s time to answer President Obama’s call to do “what’s best for the next generation.”

 
Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are fellows of NDN and the New Policy Institute and co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press: 2008), named one of the 10 favorite books by the New York Times in 2008.

After electing the President to office young people haven't exactly been the bastions of recipients of bills passed this past year, nor has there been a whole heck of a lot of outreach from the White House. But tonight the President outlined a few things we have reason to be excited about.

First was a little shout out to clean energy and creating jobs for those who are being good stewards of our land.

"We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it's time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America."

The Energy Bill is coming up in the next few weeks, and this is the end all be all bill for our generation. It will be because of this bill that we curb hazardous waste, stop despicable practices in creating electricity, and forever mandate that our country lead the way in clean technology to save our planet for Millennials and our children. If, at the same time, we create a ton of jobs for Generation Unemployed, then I say bring it on and lets pass this Energy Bill NOW.

Second, is a little help with the cost of college tuition, better schools, better education, and maybe... just maybe some hope for employment.

" The idea here is simple: instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform - reform that raises student achievement, inspires students to excel in math and science, and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to inner-cities. In the 21st century, one of the best anti-poverty programs is a world-class education. In this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than their potential.

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years - and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs - because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem."

Associate Rich Williams from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Higher Education issued a statement on the higher education issues addressed in President Obama’s State of the Union address, saying

"We are thrilled that the President renewed his commitment to a greater investment in higher education, even as he proposed a three-year freeze on many other funding areas.

Time and again, America has seen the college educated strengthen the nation’s social and economic fabric. Investment in education is proven to strengthen the economy. We applaud the President for reaffirming that investment in the education of our young adults is essential to the country’s recovery and long-term strength.”

I will say, however, one of the best comments I saw came from Natasha Chart who said on twitter in response to the "best anti-poverty program was education" that perhaps a better one would be "supporting living wages for high school graduates." I couldn't agree more.

While the President championed higher education from four year to community college level, there must be an increased focus on helping youth who do not go to any institutions of higher learning and instead rely on their public high school education to prepare them with basic skills necessary in today's entry level jobs. Further, lets help these young people who want to work full time but still seek training at trade schools and technology institutes without being overburdened by out of touch FAFSA requirements like parental tax records for youth that are on their own (just to name one).

The comment from the president recognizing the plight of rural youth and their often sub-par education was also notable. So many children in rural areas lack adequate education, because school districts can't compete with good salaries, sexy locations, or other things to entice new teachers. If "the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than their potential" then its time for our government, specifically the Secretary of Education to understand the differences between rural youth and inner city Chicago youth.

Pay-Go made an appearance:

"So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s."

This has recently been stalled in the Senate so the President called them out. Here's the thing about pay as you go... when you have distribution of federal dollars that only goes to those with the biggest and best lobbyist or the elected official who has the most power - it rarely makes it down to the little projects.

While the President mentions specifically entitlement programs and the "Fiscal Commission" modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad I can promise you that not a dime of Social Security will be touched. If other entitlement programs like Pell Grants and the GI Bill have to be slashed completely on the "pay-go" model they will be to accommodate for things like Social Security and Medicare... simply because young people don't have the lobbying power to ensure otherwise. Pardon my cynicism, but its true, the lobbying force of seniors is just too strong.

In a response in the Federal Times Gregg Carlstorm says of the spending freeze

"Experts say the spending freeze is unlikely to have a significant impact on resources at most agencies. But John Palguta, vice president for policy at the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, said it could lead to some cuts in staffing and training.

"There's a psychological impact," he said. "As soon as you tell federal agencies their budgets are frozen, they go into worst-case planning mode. They stop paying for training. They say, ‘Let's see how many jobs we can get away with not filling.' ''

Palguta said federal managers should also be concerned about one big unknown: pay increases. Agencies with frozen budgets might still have to accommodate federal pay raises over the next three years — which means they'll have to find cuts in other areas."

If the purpose is to create jobs in the upcoming year, cutting federal jobs with agency funding freezes and forcing people into the private sector might not be the best strategy. That said, I'm not an economist, so what do I know. I personally believe in curbing spending, considerably, but I think there are better places to do that while preserving people's existing jobs.

Perhaps we could sell that Bridge to Nowhere up in Alaska, or export some of our Reality TV, maybe the President could call on Conan to start a new national TV channel and the advertising dollars go to pay for agency budgets, heck reducing the number of troops in Iraq alone could seriously curb spending...

Another thing that our generation should be happy about is a renewed sense of inclusion from Washington that finally ... FINALLY ... we value all people equally ... or, at least, we're going to try to, or... maybe just ask people to try to.

"We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else. . .

This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws - so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work."

One key way that we can help create more jobs in this country - or preserve the living wage - is by guaranteeing that all Americans that want to can serve in the US Military and that all women will earn equal pay for equal work. Both of these issues are ones that Millennials support overwhelmingly and it is high time that we set an example of civil rights to the rest of the world.

So, on the whole, a little good, a little iffy, nothing too shocking from the cheap seats. I want to be hopeful, I want to remain steadfast in my excitment for policies that impact our generation, but I'm also still crushed that I don't have a public option for my health care, so take with that what you will

State of the Union for Youth - By the words:
Youth (0)
Young (2)
Students (5)
Generation (3)
Children (or child) (5)

The Student Diplomat Video Contest, jointly sponsored by NAFSA and Abroad View Magazine (and previously blogged at FM here), has asked American students to create original videos demonstrating advanced global understanding based on their study abroad experiences. While the contest yielded dozens of submissions, NAFSA and Abroad View have pared the list to five finalists.

In order to select a winner, organizers of the contest are asking the public to cast their votes – no later than January 15 – for their favorite video by visiting the Official Contest Page. The contest asked students to consider how their study abroad experience has shaped them as global citizens, served as a bridge to cross-cultural understanding, promoted peace, or positively impacted the local community in which they studied.

The winner, selected by public voting and an expert panel of judges, will be announced on Monday, January 18, and will receive a $300 cash prize and the title of "2009 Student Diplomat."

Pay a visit to the contest page today and vote for your favorite video!

While societal observers, particularly those involved with higher education, castigate liberal arts education as being passe, Inside Higher Ed published a piece last week by Mary Marcy, provost and vice president of Bard College that made the opposite argument.

Marcy's thesis regarding the gap between conventional wisdom and actual student attitudes rests on two legs: 1.) Liberal arts education IS conducive to a job search, and 2.) Liberal arts education matches students' desire for a well-rounded college experience.

There are likely two reasons for this gap between conventional wisdom and student decision making. The first is that the separation of liberal arts education from employment is simply unfounded. Employers consistently say that they want to hire graduates who can write and speak clearly, who are innovative and critical thinkers, and who are sophisticated and comfortable with diversity. While not exclusively the domain of liberal education, these traits are certainly cultivated in a liberal arts environment.

The second probable reason for the persistence of the liberal arts is the focus of students themselves. Today’s traditional college age population is more globally-minded, less interested in work as a means only to material success, more willing to find middle ground on issues that typically lead to bi-modal responses (such as abortion), and entirely comfortable with differences in race, gender, and sexual orientation.

In short, today’s young people are balm to the liberal educator’s soul. Ideally, liberal education should literally do just that – it should be education that liberates, that frees the mind from the vagaries and prejudices of received opinion and limited life experiences.

This generation gets a bad wrap of being too materialistic mainly due to technology's hold on Millennials. But as Marcy goes on to point out, technology can go with an engaging education targeting the whole person; the two aren't mutually exclusive.

I find it very interesting that "for the first time since 1982, more than 50 percent of first year students identified 'developing a meaningful philosophy of life' as an important or very important goal of their college experience." This is a statistic I've looked at for a few years now with fascination and pessimism. But with this turning around, perhaps liberal arts is actually due for a comeback much more quickly than we realize.

In a reversal, Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl requested that the Pittsburgh City Council cancel the vote on his proposed tax on Pittsburgh college students.

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl has asked city council to shelve his proposed tuition tax, saying instead that a broad-based "New Pittsburgh Coalition" will work to solve the city's pension problem.

The mayor is willing to cancel the tuition tax vote that could have occurred today in spite of the fact that he can't claim to have landed the $15 million-a-year needed to right the pension fund, nor the $5 million compromise demand he made earlier this month. "This is a leap of faith for all of us," he conceded, but if successful, it will bring the needed funds -- hopefully in time for the 2011 budget, when the city will otherwise face a dire fiscal situation.

For students who were already facing skyrocketing tuition and textbook prices, this tax would have been one more obstacle to gaining access to a college education.

For Ravenstahl's part, this is a political loss (despite it being a good decision) based on his push for this and his subsequent walk-back. He did not manage to secure any additional funding for the city in exchange for retracting the idea, though he did get assurances from Pitt and Carnegie Mellon that they would increase their yearly donation to the city. Ravenstahl must hope, or in his words exhibit "good faith," that these donations dent the budget deficit he must erase by 2011.

In the end, though, this is a good decision for the future of Pittsburgh's college students and educational institutions.

If you were a student at Boise State this fall and you were walking around campus, you might have seen the AIDS prevention fliers.

One of the messages was to avoid having sex with bisexuals and those using IVs to use drugs. Another was to avoid having sex with blacks, stating that "blacks are walking STD factories," and "once you go black, we don't want you back."

In reaction, Boise State students held a solidarity rally last weekend in an effort to re-affirm their opposition to hate on campus.

Students called the event "Hands Across Campus." Hundreds of students joined hand in hand and see how far they could stretch across campus. They held hands for about 15 minutes.

Also, protesters were asked to sign a statement against hate on campus and a special event will be held at a later date.

Hundreds of students attended the event. Campus administrators are investigating the fliers.

Remember the group of William and Mary students I wrote about a couple months ago who sought to better connect the student body with the community? They formed Students for a Better Williamsburg, an organization that seeks to engage local government in order to provide the best outcomes for students, and last week they already started to make change.

Until a week ago Thursday night, Williamsburg landlords were restricted by law from allowing more than three people to live in their properties. The consequences aren't hard to imagine. Realistically, if college students want a fourth person to live in a house, they're going to attempt it, which brings up the safety issue of not knowing who is in what residence. Furthermore, those houses with four or five bedrooms that by law can only hold three people lead to wasted space. Over 600 houses within Williamsburg contain four or five bedrooms. The three person rule was one of the main obstacles in the town-gown relationship between William and Mary and Williamsburg.

Students for a Better Williamsburg (SBW) and the Student Assembly, though, came together and negotiated with members of the city council. Both groups, working with Vice Mayor Clyde Haulman, crafted a compromise ordinance approved at the council meeting last Thursday, December 10. The ordinance can be viewed here.

The amended ordinance requires that properties within Williamsburg’s four rental inspection districts exceeding 2000 square feet be eligible to allow up to four unrelated tenants with city approval. The properties are also required to contain four parking spots for each tenant. In addition, the same requirements would be extended to B-3 business districts. Landlords would submit their properties to secure the approval of the city’s zoning administrator. Some 49 beds would be added -- a minor change on paper -- but it's the start of a dialogue with the council that counts the most for students.

Michael Douglass, one of the co-founders of SBW, remarked upon the ironic contrast in behaviors between the opposed residents and the students supportive of the legislation in an e-mail. One of these residents, Bill Dell, a known opponent of the rule change, expressed unhappiness with the speedy process.

“You all have put things on the table that should be looked over,” resident Bill Dell said, interrupting the vote.

Yet in an August 19 article in the Flat Hat, William and Mary's student newspaper, one of the planning commissioners remarked upon the need for community participation.

Commissioner Jim Joseph seemed concerned that the community be given ample opportunity to speak.

“We need the participation, yet when the opportunity comes the participation’s not there, and therefore we have to stress that,” he said. “This is a very sensitive issue with a lot of feelings on both sides, and I think we just have to push that as hard as we can to make sure people do participate.”

And in the end, the students were the ones participating with an eye toward compromise.

SBW and the William and Mary Student Assembly demonstrated what can happen with some collaboration and a will to get things done. This is a fantastic example of our brand of youth activism, identifying a need and working the proper channels in a good-faith effort to make change. Yes, things do not always work this smoothly, but in this case, thanks to great leadership and hard work, it did.

Releases by SBW and William and Mary's Student Assembly are available to read, and video of the council meeting can be viewed here.

Money (or lack thereof) is behind the decision to leave college for many students.

In a survey released this week by Public Agenda and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, students also noted that to get students like them to go to college, higher education and society should improve and emphasize flexible scheduling and financial aid for part-time students as much as on cutting college prices.

The goal of the survey is to provide student viewpoints in a set of policy discussions around college access and completion that are often dominated by higher education officials and policy makers, said Jean Johnson, who directs Public Agenda's education efforts.

The survey also finds that another barrier for many of those leaving college is the need to work to support themselves and their families. Over one-third of respondents who previously left an institution and wanted to re-enroll explained scholarships covering their tuitions and books still would not be enough.

While education is supposed to be the answer for young people trapped on the lower end of our economy, what happens when they can't access it because of that economy? According to this survey, higher education becomes a pipe dream that passes them by.

Today at 12:30-1pm EST Gregory Cendana from the United States Student Association will be on ABC Nightline News "twittercast"
show, which will discuss the ensuing debate at the University of California (and all across the country), in their discussion topic“Is Public Higher Education Getting Too Expensive?”

If you can tweet right now:
.@USStudents live on ABC today 12:30-1pm EST Join discussion by tweet ur answer 2 "Is higher ed too expensive?" @Nightline

And then when you get a chance at 12:30 EST please start tweeting responses to @Nightline while watching online here, about your high education experience.