Tag Archives: responsibilities

Everybody but our President

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve seen European heads of state visit Ukraine to meet with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy; British PM Boris Johnson openly walked the streets of Kyiv with him.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) led a delegation of Progressive-Democrat Congressmen to Ukraine to meet with Zelenskyy.

Even our First Lady Jill Biden traveled to Ukraine to meet with Ukraine’s First Lady Olena Zelenska.

Now

[a] Republican delegation led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) has met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kiev….

But our President, Joe Biden (D), that accomplished master of…abundant caution…still won’t to go.

A Bit More on Student Debt

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote a bit ago about what colleges and universities should be required to do regarding student loans and student debt.  Here’s a bit more concerning why college and university management teams’ feet should be held to the fire. Mike Brown, writing for lendedu, has some data that compares, by school, student salary expectations with salary reality. In general,

median expected salary after graduating was $60,000, but the PayScale data showed that the typical graduate with zero to five years experience makes $48,400.

Brown published salary expectation vs reality for 62 schools; here are those data for the first 15 schools in his table:

School Actual Early Career Pay (0-5 Yrs. Experience) Expected Median Salary (0 Yrs. Experience) Percent Difference
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale $49,100 $70,000 70%
Washington State University $54,600 $70,000 78%
Central Michigan University $47,000 $58,500 80%
University of Louisville $48,800 $60,000 81%
East Carolina University $47,200 $58,000 81%
University of California, Riverside $54,000 $65,000 83%
University of Tennessee, Knoxville $50,200 $60,000 84%
Binghamton University $58,900 $70,000 84%
University of Illinois at Chicago $55,000 $65,000 85%
Temple University $50,800 $60,000 85%
University of Alabama $51,200 $60,000 85%
University of Colorado Boulder $55,600 $65,000 86%
University of California, Los Angeles $60,000 $70,000 86%
Kansas State University $51,600 $60,000 86%
Oklahoma State University $51,700 $60,000 86%

 

Who sets these expectations? That’s not clear. Who allows these expectations to stand uncorrected? The management teams at those colleges and universities.

Allowing this distortion to stand uncorrected is one more reason colleges and universities should be required to publish

  • graduation rates for their students given
    • 1 year of attendance
    • 2 years of attendance
    • 3 years of attendance
    • 4 years of attendance
    • 5 years of attendance
  • by major, the average and median salary for their graduates one year after graduation and five years after graduation—note that these data are not for one and five years of employment

The data from Brown also demonstrate why colleges and universities should be required to play the decisive role in lending money to their students and prospective students. Colleges and universities should be required, with respect to borrowings taken in order to attend the college/university, to

  • be the lender for the majority of the money borrowed by each student or student’s parent/guardian and not allowed to sell or otherwise transfer the loan, or
  • be the co-signer with the borrowing student or student’s parent/guardian on loans the student or student’s parent/guardian originates, or
  • be the loan guarantor of such loans, or
  • any combination of those three

Colleges and universities must absorb the risk of students’ or parents’/guardians’ borrowing in order for the student to attend their school. It’s the colleges and universities that are misleading the students concerning the value of the degrees gained, whether that misleading is overt through their setting inaccurate expectations, or passive through their silence regarding inaccurate expectations.

This is Who

Posted on by
Reply

…the Progressive-Democratic Party has become. This from Party leader, President Joe Biden (D), as he bragged about his starting out in DC happily lunching with segregationists like [James (D, MS)] Eastland and [Strom (D, SC)] Thurmond, all those guys:

[W]e ended up eating lunch together. Things have changed. We got to bring it back.

Get back to hobnobbing with segregationists. Sure. This is yet another example of the manifest racism of Party.

Dan McLaughlin, National Review Senior Writer, noted:

Segregationists were famously chill about who got to eat lunch together[.]

National Journalism Center Program Director Becket Adams had this:

[O]f course you ate lunch together. [Y]ou were allowed to sit at their counter.

David Rubin of The Rubin Report, tweeted:

Nothing like a hot lunch with a segregationist…

Not all of us, and certainly none of us average Americans are interested in bringing the old days of segregation back. That’s the desire of the Left with their identity politics racist and sexist bigotry.

Close in Spirit

Posted on by
Reply

…but wide of the mark. Wide of the target itself, even. In Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section, a letter-writer offered this on the matter of student loan debt:

The solution is to hold academic institutions accountable. If they want government to give my money to their students, they need to prove the value of their product. Set parameters: an 80% graduation rate in five years, and the ability to secure a job at a reasonable salary one year postgraduation. Failure results in withdrawal of federal money available to future students until parameters are met.

It’s entirely appropriate to hold the colleges and universities individually responsible for their product: students taught, successfully or not, for one or more years along with graduated students. But the writer’s suggestion still wants far more government intervention than is warranted.

Let the free market solve the puzzle, and here is where legitimate government intervention would be appropriate. Information is key. Require the colleges and universities to publish their dropout rates by number of years in school, graduation rates by major, and both the median and mean annual incomes, again by major, of graduated students five years after graduation.

One more path for government intervention: require the colleges and universities to be the primary lender to the student or to co-sign as borrower on the loan to their students. As part of the loan or co-signed loan document, require the borrowing student to answer the income survey.

A final act of government intervention: let the borrowing student discharge his student loan debt through personal bankruptcy, as with any other personal debt, and then deal with the economic and reputational consequences of that bankruptcy.

With this, there would be no need for government to lend to students or to guarantee any loans to students. Thus, a final final act of government intervention: government should withdraw entirely from the student loan industry.

“The Leak” and Its Fall Impact

Posted on by
Reply

Short, and too the point. Assume the leaked Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which seems to overturn Roe v Wade, is substantially the decision the Court will release in its June batch of opinion releases.

The hue and cry that’s occurring now from both sides of the question is the hue and cry that would have occurred in June following the Court’s release of its official opinion. That hue and cry will be very much watered down by this week’s leak reaction, to the point that I don’t see the reaction to the official opinion having much steam left for the summer and fall mid-term campaigns or for the fall elections.

That leads me to two possibilities for the leak. One is that the liberal Justice staff leaker, if that’s who it was, made a tactical blunder with his leak. He virtually eliminated the reaction the official release would have generated, a reaction much closer to the election and so much more likely to have an impact.

The other possibility is that the conservative Justice staff leaker, if that’s who it was, successfully defanged the reaction by stimulating it too early in the season to have much impact.

A clue regarding who the leaker is can be collected from the reactions to the leak. The Left, and especially the Progressive-Democratic Party politicians, all are focused strictly on the putative outcome of the Court’s decision; they wholly ignore the fact of the leak. Here’s a canonical example of that disdain from the head of the Progressive-Democratic Party, President Joe Biden (D):

Not a syllable—not a minim—of concern or comment regarding the illegality of the leak. Indeed, this President’s sole critical caveat, the only thing about which he cares, is whether the leak actually reflects the upcoming ruling.

On the other hand, Conservatives and the Conservative and Republican politicians, while not ignoring the putative decision, strongly emphasize the leak and its illegality.

One side ignores the illegality of the matter; the other side decries the leak for its law-breaking nature. That’s strongly indicative of who the leaker is.