If we want higher education to cost less, we should make it cheaper when people enroll. But
that’s not how we do things in the United States, where the first rule
of personal finance is that it should never be simple. Instead,
we befuddle people with a menu of a half-dozen retirement accounts. We
fetishize the tax code and its deductions and credits and refunds. We
name gold, silver and bronze health insurance plans after precious
metals but award no medals for clearing the enrollment hurdles. And so it goes with President Biden’s executive action
around student loan debt cancellation. The potential $20,000 in relief
per person gets the headlines. But the sleeper element here is a new income-driven debt repayment plan that would help many people pay much less of their student loan debt over time, if they’re not big earners.Instead
of helping people up front, when they’re hit with five- and six-figure
tuition price tags, we’re taking a plan that used to serve as a safety
net and turning it into a stealth subsidy.
This is kind of what I just suggested but it totally misses the value metric. Is a degree in Fine Arts of any value? Possibly if one is financially independent and wants to have good cocktail party banter. Yet in a highly competitive global economy it is a waste. Thus there must be some incentive on the student and the college to balance risk and return. Thus using my scheme above, Perhaps a college may decide to no longer offer a Fine Arts major since they would just lose money from negative payments.
But also what of these costs to a college. Having an endless supply of tuition money guaranteed allows them to do the most idiotic things. Take for example MIT's current plan. It is called Strategic action plan for belonging, achievement, and composition.
Thus for belonging they assert:
Expand categories of identity data formally collected from
MIT community members to include characteristics such as religion, disability,
first-generation, veteran status, gender beyond the binary, disaggregation of
ethnic/racial categories, etc. Develop and execute a communications strategy that supports belonging, achievement,
and composition to reach all MIT stakeholders (internal and external). These
strategies should include amplifying underrepresented groups and voices,
especially during times of the year that commemorate particular identities
within our diverse community; and bolstering visibility of existing awards
programs for students, staff, and faculty (MLK awards, RISE awards, etc.)
Then for achievement:
Advance excellence in all forms of success among underrepresented
undergraduate students. Implement a stronger undergraduate advising structure
with dedicated professional staff who, in concert with faculty advisors, will
work with students across their undergraduate careers
Finally for composition:
Improve the representation of underrepresented graduate students.
Each academic program will document its graduate admissions process and
selection criteria; deans, department heads, and Institute leadership will
collaborate to ensure the implementation of holistic processes for admissions
decisions Institute-wide; they will also document, promote, and operationalize
best practices to inform the use of standardized tests, letters of
recommendation, and other admissions criteria. Create a certification process
focused on the relationships between diversity, community, and excellence for
all MIT principal investigators who make postdoc and research staff hiring
decisions.
One must then ask two questions. First does any of this make sense? Second, how does any of this impact excellence in the professional technical areas? Frankly it just adds more overhead and in turn more costs. Moreover much of this is just indoctrination. It is managed by Commissars called Deans who enforce these vague plans. In many ways these documents are reflective the old Soviet Five Year Plans and we know how well they worked.