An executive at a Fortune 500 company lectures his staff of subordinate social climbers that "people are unable to save and invest for their kids' education." His staff of persons tagged with job titles indicating their importance ("Process Engineers," "Product Managers," and of course "Project Managers." These persons job titles define their essence so strongly that it affects their expressions and gestures, rendering them physically distinct from other employees. This specific class, important cads of a meritocracy in this instance articulated no questioning of their boss's monologue. Sure they responded with comments echoing the tone and intent of that monologue, a rhetorical scene of agitprop. Their job duties seem to include working on projects designed to create products for customers to "save for college." The boss cited many statistics about the average cost of higher education and the financial resources most families possess. The statistics cited show a nation of families faced with a staggering inability to finance their kids' education. This inability is so staggering that it should lead one to ask whether college funding shortages are self-contained problems or symptoms of much larger problems? Judging from this agitprop scene, college funding is only a challenge that good marketing can solve.
These strategy sessions never consider that college funding shortages are just one more deplorable result of our living within a political economy fostering more uneven distributions of wealth. Many socioeconomic data demonstrate rising economic inequality, but a close review of trends on personal spending on education refutes any solution based on the "austerity" fetish en vogue among many policy makers and pundits.
Overall government spending has increased measured in real dollars on higher education. This number should not be viewed by itself lest we see an incomplete picture of the funding sources of higher education.
Both conventional republican politicians and credentialed think tank analysts parrot the familiar refrain that increases of state monies spent on higher education have only increased its costs. While state spending has increased, students and their families have paid an equal or higher percentage of the overall increase in higher educational spending [1]. From 1960-2008 the U.S. federal government's share of total monies spent on higher education remained steady at slightly less than 10%; also, state local government's share declined from 55% to 45%. [2] Personal spending on total monies spent increased from 40% to almost 50%. [3]. Inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from 1980-2010 has risen 179%. [4]. Moreover, during that same period tuition costs at four-year public colleges and universities increased from 12% of average incomes to 25%.[5]. Put another way to illustrate this alarming trend, tuition payments from 1981-2005 increased from 22% of total expenditures to 37%. [6]. This figure does state that the increase in tuition as a percentage of total expenditures does not include the growth in federal assistance. Such growth has increased as well, which should signal rising federally funded tuition assistance should mitigate the burden that rising tuition should impose on persons and families. Regardless of increases in federal tuition assistance, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan states that "As a result of tuition growth, college seniors with student loans now graduate with an average of more than $25,000. in debt. In 1996, that figure was closer to $12,500. [7]. These points are crucial to understanding that this funding trend whereby students and families pay more out of pocket and incur higher debt levels is unsustainable.
Personal spending levels for higher education is unsustainable. What makes this trend more difficult to justify is that total spending on higher education as of 2008-both public and private expenditures-equals 2.7% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). [8]. Please note that public direct expenditures on higher education only totals 1% of GDP. [9]. All politicians constantly wail about the critical importance of education because they claim it is essential to a strong defense, economy, etc. Like all political banter speeches about education are mostly just rhetoric. Would our government spending more than 1-2% of our GDP on higher education throw the U.S. into fiscal insolvency? Of course not, which too is a rhetorical response.
Higher education costs-in addition to health care costs-continue to rise while median income stagnates. Policymakers and in this case the Agitprop cast of project managers etc mentioned above show no interest in addressing stagnating median incomes as a potential remedy of the college funding dilemma. That is because they don't serve the greatest good for the greatest number. Soviet Agitprop featured the use of theatrical attempts to justify creating a classless society. Today in the U.S., however, agitprop is used to convince us that class doesn't matter and growing stratification warrants no remedial, aggregate efforts.
Thus, the college funding shortages continue while marketing projects forge ahead. I am no project manager. I am only a clerical employee who sits nearby, allowing my hearing their conversations replete with corporate speak, constructing a neo-Babel. So I hope this forum allows me to be heard and understood even if my observations are wrong.
[1]. Henwood,Doug. Left Business Observer #125, February 2010. http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/College.html
[2]. Ibid.
[3]. Ibid.
[4]. Ibid.
[5]. Ibid.
[6.] Lingenfelter, Paul E. "The Un-funding of Higher Education???" Public Affairs Week. Baruch College, City University of New York. March 30, 2006. http://www.sheeo.org/about/paulpres/baruch%20college.pdf
[7]. "Beyond the Iron Triangle: Containing the Cost of College and Student Aid." Remarks of U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan to the annual Federal Student Aid conference, Las Vegas, Nevada November 29,
style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica">
No comments:
Post a Comment