Tag Archives: education

Reading Between the Lines

Posted on by
Reply

In an article centered on the relationship between law school student debt and law school graduates’ working income (short answer: law students, in the vast main, borrow far more than their subsequent incomes support), there appeared this statement by a University of Miami law school graduate on why she chose UM and huge debt over a “lesser” law school that offered her a significant scholarship:

You go to any courthouse in Miami and the judge went to UM, the judge is a teacher at UM, there’s some sort of connection to UM[.]

There is this expectation that judges will be swayed by personal relationships, by school tie relationships, far more than they will be by the merits of the case before them and text of the law(s) governing that case.

Sadly, that expectation is both widespread and at least partially valid.

Student Debt Problems

Posted on by
Reply

Students who borrowed (lots of) money to get degrees from “elite” schools—or from any school, come to that—now feel financially hobbled for life.

Recent film program graduates of Columbia University who took out federal student loans had a median debt of $181,000.
Yet two years after earning their master’s degrees, half of the borrowers were making less than $30,000 a year.

The universities share a measure of responsibility for these student debt problems. These schools should—and the reluctant should be required to—publish the mean and median salaries for each of the first five years of employment for each of the majors the schools offer. The schools also should be the ones making the loans to their students or underwriting private lenders’ loans to their students.

The Federal government shares a measure of responsibility for these student debt problems, also. The government should stop throwing money at the schools; that just encourages them to increase their tuition price to absorb the Federal dollars—at the immediate and direct expense to the students. Indeed, the Federal government should stop shipping money to the schools at all except for narrowly defined basic research projects, and those exceptions should be rare.

However, color me unsympathetic to the student borrowers’ plight; they bear the greatest responsibility for their situation. No one made them borrow such outlandish amounts. Even when I was in school the wage, etc, data were available; I just had to get off the couch to go get them. Today, it’s not even necessary to get off the couch: the pupils just have to bestir themselves enough to engage in some key clicks on their computerized device.

I’m especially unsympathetic to the students’ blame-shifting.

Matt Black graduated from Columbia in 2015 with an MFA in film and $233,000 in federal loans. …
Mr Black, a 36-year-old writer and producer in Los Angeles, said he grew up in a lower middle-class family in Oklahoma. He earns $60,000 in a good year and less than half that in dry stretches. The faculty at Columbia was stellar, he said, but he blamed the school for his “calamitous financial situation.”

Black needs to get a mirror and consult it. He was no child newly graduated from high school, blindly accepting the putative guidance counselor’s advice when he decided to take those loans. He was a grown adult man looking at graduate schools (he did shop around, looking at more than just Columbia, didn’t he?). No one made him take “the school’s” unvarnished word; no one made him not check for himself whether borrowing so much against a future salary he so easily could have learned was a good idea. No one made him take the loans. Indeed, no one made him decide to go to such an expensive school for his film MFA.

All Politics is Local

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what an erstwhile Democrat and Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill said some 40 years ago. He’s right: every elected politician is beholden to his constituents and to no one else (at least legitimately so), and those constituents are the citizens in his district.

It doesn’t get any more local than school board elections, and lately, it hasn’t been much more political than with those school boards whose members choose to ignore their constituents, the parents whose children those members demand to indoctrinate. That indoctrination, coming deliberately at the expense of reading (because literature is just stuff by a bunch of old, dead, white patriarchs), writing (because sentences and paragraphs in the American English way are White Supremacist constructions), arithmetic (because that’s just racist), is carefully centered on critical race theory, our nation’s evil Founders, and the divisiveness of celebrating our national flag, our national anthem, our Pledge of Allegiance—that last to the point that those school board members ban our Pledge’s recital in class and at school board meetings.

And so parents—who became exposed to the indoctrination sewage being inflicted on their children while locked up in their homes during Government-mandated lockdowns related to the Wuhan Virus situation—have begun fighting back, emphasizing their localness and getting political: calling out those abusive school board members and running for school board positions themselves—and overwhelmingly replacing those abusive members.

One example—an example of increasing typicality—is this.

Leigh Wambsganss is one of those parents who sparked a grassroots, anti-CRT revolt in Southlake, Texas, that mobilized record turnout in local school board elections to defeat pro-CRT board members by landslide margins.

Even though the Left so hates having its diktats challenged that Leftists overtly threaten the Wamgsgansses of the parents for their impudence, Wambsganss had this:

it’s like once you walk through that fire, you’re untouchable. And the more national news we got and the more we were hit, the more invincible we became. Because now you can say anything, it just doesn’t matter to us anymore.

Because the point of it all—the hugely important point—is this, also from Wambsganss:

If we are going to take America back, we have got to take our public school systems back. And the only way you’re going to do that is win your school board elections.

Preach it, Sister.

A Question

Posted on by
Reply

…was asked.

What do you think is the most effective way for companies to support diversity initiatives?

…and answered, by yours truly.

Stop carrying out diversity initiatives. Those are just unserious virtue-signaling nonsense.

Instead, businesses (among other entities) support and/or carry out their own training programs, and they should support K-12 charter, voucher, private school education, so as to build over time a population of qualified adults that is reflective of the population at large.

From that diverse population of qualified individuals, then select and hire based on merit rather than on virtue signals.

College Entrance Discrimination

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in Monday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section wants the Supreme Court to rule in favor of racial discrimination, at least as practiced by Harvard, in the Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard case.

If the plaintiffs…win, you can bet that elite college- and graduate-admissions offices around the country will establish workarounds to assure that opportunities remain for admittance of significant numbers of underrepresented minorities.

Therefore, he asserts,

The justices would be wise to take a pass on the Harvard case, or to affirm the lower courts’ decisions.

Which decisions upheld Harvard’s practice of racial discrimination for admission to its ivy-coated halls.

Harvard, to the letter writer’s first plaint, already uses “workarounds”—opaque and obscure criteria for assessing admissions “essays” and “descriptions of what this means to me” for starters—in selecting entrants on the basis of race while nonselecting other entrants on the basis of race.

Were the letter writer serious, he’d stop demanding free passes for the “underrepresented minorities” solely on the basis of their under-representation; that’s just racism under another guise. They’re underrepresented because they’re not qualified.

The solution is not free passes at the late date of college admissions applications, it’s getting these high school “graduates” actually educated and qualified.

More importantly, the solution is working to correct the K-12 systems and broken families that are the cause of unqualified-ness. But that takes actual work, and it’ll be a generational struggle to correct the ills so deeply embedded in what we’re pleased to call our education system. That solution is not the feel-good quick fix of which the Left is so enamored.

Another letter writer, however, takes a markedly differ view of the matter.

It [The Supreme Court] ought to take this case and apply strict scrutiny to the rationales advanced to justify treating some students more favorably than others merely on account of their ancestry.

But that doesn’t go far enough. As Chief Justice John Roberts already has said, [t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. On this, he’s right.

There is no justification for discriminating on “account of ancestry.” No more strict scrutiny; end the use of race as a discriminant, no matter how far down the list of selection criteria. Any—any—use of race as a selection criterion is rank racism.

Full stop.