I understand the passion with which people hold the idea that young people need to 'Follow their Dreams'. Every school in the country is FILLED with posters to that effect. The stories that are told on various 'Days' and assemblies are, likewise, a testament to the paradigm.
But, do students NEED to dedicate their lives to Art, Music, Social Work, Politics, Communications, and NGOs that purport to keep the world from crushing the 'underprivileged'?
I think not.
Now, volunteers - in the early days, mostly of the female variety - did, in fact, make major differences to their communities. Oh, sure, those activities often doubled as a social status indicator - Junior League, garden clubs, League of Women Voters, museum docents, to name a few of the type - but, they also changed a new country, providing various important social and cultural services, without adding to the tax burden on the state.
They did this without having the educational credentials. They were generally not college-educated - some had been home-schooled, others given basically a finishing school type of curriculum. Few were in any way qualified for a paid position. But, due to the fact that they didn't charge for their efforts, they managed to provide some pretty impressive services at a low cost.
Were some of them working at tasks that were the equivalent of a worker in an unskilled job? Absolutely. But, keep in mind, that a certain number of them were, in fact, people with no marketable skills. Most did their work as a public service, and, probably, a way to socialize with other women, while exuding an air of 'selflessness'. Some enjoyed the gossip, the exclusivity of the organizations, and the chance to get out of the house in a more meaningful way than social visits.
For some, it gave them a way to engage in conversation around the dinner table, something to talk about when asked about their lives (beyond children, church, and spouse).
Many people don't remember it, but The Feminine Mystique argued for women to be able to use their unpaid volunteer work as a criteria for employment experience, should they decide to return to paid work after their children were grown. Betty Friedan did NOT envision that the average woman would be working full-time, or even in regular part-time hours.
But, primarily, those jobs - in educational SUPPORT in schools, in the various art SUPPORT activities, in running charity efforts - were NOT intended to be paid jobs, nor needing a special expertise other than on-the-job training.
Now, the person administering the money might need special training. Those who provide skilled services (firefighters, teachers, medical/nursing personnel) do need the training/education for their jobs.
But, not the volunteer.
MOST of the growth in NGOs is due to the fact that so many of those formerly volunteer jobs are now paid and institutionalized. Those are the jobs that are requiring degrees - even advanced degrees - just to put a foot in the door.
Those are the jobs that are so sought after, that they can pay their employees a pittance - even classify the jobs as 'intern positions' and pay NOTHING for the work. Those are the jobs that today's students are told are REALLY valuable, more important that those 'grubby' jobs in business or science.
So, what's the answer?
Any student funding - whether public or private - has to be tied to employability. By that, I mean, that after a short time of being the 'new kid' at the office, that job should be able to provide a decent salary - sufficient income to allow that graduate to pay back their loans.
How does that affect non-public student tuition assistance?
Any money that has to be paid back should be sufficiently offset by the average earning capacity in that job. If they cannot realistically pay it back within 10 years or so, they don't qualify for the loan. And, for rich parents, make them co-sign a loan that is NOT guaranteed or interest-subsidized.
Any aid has to be looked at in terms of what the student will need to complete that degree (or, if one of the many degrees that require graduate or professional education, that amount of assistance is also calculated in) So, no more giving the first couple of years of assistance to a student, then forcing them onto the pricey loan market, should they want to complete their degree (a common ploy for financial aid offices).
How would this happen?
Easiest way I can think of is to find out what that kid is aiming for, look at the projections for future employment and multiple the expected earnings for the first 10 years, and set a limit, based on that, on what that kid can get from financial aid - both tuition and housing.
That limitation also applies to the rich kids. Their parents will have to raid their investments, or set up a college fund. They will no longer be able to borrow money from public sources to save themselves some interest on those loans.
And, common tactic, if they BUY a condo for their kid to live in while in school, that contribution is counted towards the limitation.
If a student wants to change majors, or otherwise add to the time in school, that limit holds. They could re-set that limit at any time, by dropping out for a few semesters, living at home, and putting all cash into repayment, thereby reducing or eliminating that factor.
I would expect that would do a lot to get kids to focus their future goals in a more realistic manner.
I'm all for people tackling socially important jobs. Both my husband and myself (and our youngest daughter) were science teachers (focusing on PHYSICAL science, the sub-category with the most openings). My eldest daughter is a special ed teacher, a field that is desperate for teachers in just about every market in the country.
Nurses are also in high demand, as are many health science tech positions. Ironically, nurses often have more money than doctors, as their training is shorter, and generally less expensive. So, many people may want to forego the status of the title "Dr." for the better financial position of the other health care jobs.
It means that science or math would-be teachers would qualify for more financial aid. It means that HARD business ed majors - finance, economics, accounting, and the like - would get more money than 'Business Communications' or Marketing.
If a university wants more students in some not-very-well-paid departments, they better be prepared to fork over some cash from their endowments. Non-tuition costs will need to be reigned in, as well. No more fancy fitness centers, conference centers, diversity programs. Or, for that matter, many of the administrative positions. Gotta keep the costs down.
No comments:
Post a Comment