How many parents out there want their children, or grandchildren for that matter, to have a chance at going to college? There are many studies readily available supporting the fact that a college education increases a person's lifetime income far beyond others who only have a high school diploma, or less. Sometimes, we hear the story that many of America's millionaires were able to make their fortunes without ever finishing high school. Looking back at my own life, as well as every single person that I have ever known that did not earn a college degree, I would judge this story a possible outcome for only a very few lucky individuals. Unfortunately, many young people, including myself once upon a time, dupe themselves into believing that their uniqueness and luck will create the income/security that they feel they are entitled to as Americans. They hear tales of poor people winning multi-million dollar state lotteries, while dreaming of trading places with the actual winner. Denial anyone?
Now, let's add more obstacles to gaining an education. Let us keep raising the price of tuition and textbooks to the point where people, though thirsting to learn and prosper from the hard work that it takes to earn a degree, cannot afford it. The reasons for this could be as simple as the person is a single mother, or, possibly, they are working two jobs so that they can keep their families fed, housed, and clothed. And, let's not forget that the working poor, while not being able to afford insurance premiums and deductibles, slip into debt in the wink of an eye by merely trying to keep themselves or their family healthy. Anyway that you look at this very real scenario, the prospects for these people are limited.
Then, let us think about the effects of globalization. It is a small world that is increasingly becoming smaller. Manual labor jobs for Americans are disappearing because corporations, both domestic and foreign, can find cheaper workers in other countries, as well as more lenient regulations that allow greater profit. Manual labor jobs in America, for the most part, are disappearing. Add to this the increasing discussion in this country about America falling behind some other nations in various educational categories [such as math] and the future seems potentially bleak for many Americans.
To get to my point, many people, ranging from government leaders to the nobody like myself, voice their worries that America lacks the education that is needed to spur innovations in the field of technology, as well as others. Yet, education is an industry, like so many others, which requires profit to stay afloat, thus, fewer people can afford the rising costs. Would it make sense for our government to increasingly subsidize people's education? The mere mentioning of this brings some to envision a Communistic state. However, if educating the masses is considered healthy for a society, through creating new industries, jobs, ideas and technology, is it not in our nation's best interest to help each citizen wishing to learn accomplish their goal without sacrificing the basic needs of life? I for one believe that America would greatly prosper from doing so. Who knows, maybe the next Einstein or Ben Franklin is waiting to be discovered. What do you think?
2 comments:
I agree that a more educated populace would be a great asset to the US, and the obstacles you mention make it hard for a person of limited means to acquire that education. Especially in todays economic climate some government subsidy seems desirable to achieve this goal; I can think of lots worse ways to spend taxpayer dollars. So, to the extent that an educated population is in the interest of society (and I think it is), we should assist those who truly want to better themselves through higher education. However, if we as a nation decide it is in our interest to do so, we should all bear the burden, not arbitrarily choose one group to tax to finance this goal.
Often though, it is the property owner who is singled out via property tax to pay for schools. I believe this is wrong. Any funding should come out of general tax revenues and NOT out of one groups pocket. It is simply not fair to tax only property owners (or any other group, simply because they can pay), who may or may not have children attending the schools that their property tax pays for. I think societies contribution to education should be a smaller percentage than that paid by the students (or their parents). We could, and should, make exceptions for those in need, but with world population way North of SIX BILLION, we should not be encouraging people to have more children by tax benefits, subsidies or any other means. If the economic burden of raising the child and providing their education is largely paid for by the parent, perhaps they will be less likely to irresponsibly have more offspring (achieving this in the third world is another matter, but how do we convince them unless we lead by example?).
One thing we see clearly in the 21st Century is that there are too many people on this little rock in space we call home. With the massive populations of India and China rapidly moving into the middle class, we are setting unsustainable goals for people to aspire to. These teeming billions simply cannot all live at American standards. The resources of the earth simply will not support it. Totalitarian though it may be, China is the only country I am aware of to meet this problem head--on with their one child per couple policy. I am aware that this program has been circumvented by corrupt officials and some people desperate for more children, but the logic of it is unassailable. We simply have WAY too many people in the world. Selfishness on the part of the individual does not promote collective well being. How does this relate to education? Perhaps by thinking of it as a resource, like any other. We are living on borrowed money now--we owe China and other nations trillions of dollars because we have lived beyond our means for decades. How are we going to provide higher education for a growing number of Americans?
Unfortunately, the cold hard logic is that overpopulation means less and less security, freedom and opportunity for everyone. Each new person (or million/billion people if you prefer to think of it that way) consumes resources and energy, generates waste and pollution, and adds to pressure on governments and institutions (from local to global) charged with protecting their well being. This increases the likelihood of conflict over territory (the oldest and most common cause of war), energy (think Middle East) and food (this too is happening now in countries in Asia and Africa). When we had less population, we could afford not to be too concerned about things like deforestation, decimation of the worlds oceans and fisheries, pollution from vehicles and power plants and all the other environmental problems that plague us today. But policies and activities that were acceptable when we had hundreds of millions of people are not going to be tolerable when there are tens of billions.
I support government subsidies to public education, but the contribution must be from all of us, and with an eye to the future of the planet. Any curriculum subsidized by public money must be solidly grounded in logic and science and not shaped by political expediency or pressure from religious groups. We cannot afford to perpetuate ideas and illusions that have contributed to our current dilemma and we must not promote anything that will contribute to levels of world population that consume more than the earth can provide. I am a fan of technology and maybe that will prove our salvation, if we have not already passed the tipping point where it is too late to reverse the consequences of our careless actions. Perhaps technology is the answer, but cultural/religious attitudes and beliefs have brought us to this point, along with indifference. That is what we have to change. Technology may mitigate our growing problems (or make them worse if misused), but only humanity's collective will and wisdom can save us from a bleak future.
F.J.S.-You make some very valid points. I agree with you that the funds used to subsidize education should come from general funds, rather than burdening one group, such as your example of property owners. Also, your statement about America's standard of living being unsustainable with the increase in global population and rising living standards in nations like China and India is an excellent observation. Eventually, Americans will have to accept that we are not going to be able to consume the majority of the world's resources forever. The rest of the globe's inhabitants, understandably, want their share. Thanks.
Post a Comment