OPINION & EDITORIAL
Pell grant accessibility to hurt the workforce
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by John Schwendell:
- Pell grant accessibility to hurt the workforce (September 25, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Pell grants badly misrepresented (September 28, 2007)
- Students need Pell Grant help (March 31, 2005)
- 20 words to ponder (February 3, 2005)
- Bush benefits (February 7, 2002)
- College Republicans fight for fiscal sanity (September 13, 2005)
Share This:
by John Schwendell
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
It is quite an oddity for students, colleges, Democrats, Republicans and the president of the United States to all agree on anything. However, that's exactly what happened regarding the issue of Pell grants.
Introduced by U.S. Rep. Steve Kagen, D-Wis., the bill seeks to make Pell grants more accessible and less expensive. Mr. Kagen told The Badger Herald last week the reasons for these changes include helping today's students "to compete in the global world." He adds, "A higher education will benefit your family, community, state and country." Using these criteria, one can determine whether the bill achieves what it was created for.
This policy is an investment that would hopefully benefit both students and the nation. However, such an investment will have results contrary to its original intent. While this may seem counterintuitive, investment in schooling could produce unfavorable results for students and the country as a whole.
The investment itself is the increased funding to Pell grants, allowing more students to receive federal loans, in turn ensuring that more Pell grant students will complete college. Though this could result in more graduates, it could also mean more dropouts as well.
After high school, possible college students face the prospect of a less expensive and more accessible schooling experience. Therefore, when deciding whether or not to attend school, marginal students will find a college education relatively attractive compared to immediate participation in the workforce. In this situation, deciding to attend college is easier, yet the college workload will remain just as difficult. Because of this, some people who should have entered the workforce will opt for more schooling, but find that they are ill-prepared for the college experience.
As a result, education will actually become harmful to these people's careers. For someone who does not have credentials based on schooling, experience is everything. Students who drop out of college when they realize the investment is a bad one have lost the opportunity to establish themselves in careers. This bill could cause many individuals to spend time in college only accruing debt, despite the fact that they would have been better off working the job they would have eventually gotten. This bill favors one type of learning — college education — yet ignores the great amount of learning that comes from workforce experience.
Likewise, even those who succeed may face grim prospects. By making it easier to go to school, the government has made it cheaper to produce graduates. This will result in a larger number of graduates competing in the market. More people applying for the same jobs will drive wages down and unemployment up. Mr. Kagen will help bring these graduates into the global market, but the competition will be much more cutthroat as a result.
This is not to say the bill won't help anyone; it's just that the help it provides is trivial at best.
The bill allows graduates to save $4,000 on repayment of grants, but this assistance only comes to those whose income allows for repayment of student loans. Those who are the most financially successful receive some of the greatest financial benefits of the bill. Others can have their loans entirely forgiven if their wages are low enough and their career involves "public service." However, the fact that some cannot pay back the loans suggests the increase in Pell grants is still not enough to financially sustain prospective students, despite the extra leg up.
Furthermore, despite the fact that Mr. Kagen's office says the bill can be enacted "without raising taxes," such provisions suggest that at some point in the future someone will be left to foot the bill for this fruitless investment.
It is important not to be too disappointed. After all, the bill will make it easier for many students to buy a couple extra rounds at the bar this weekend. As an investment, though, the only ones who stand to truly profit are those politicians who traded one vote on a bill for thousands of student votes on a ballot. If they are truly seeking to help students, their methods need to be changed.
John Schwendel (schwendeljr@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in economics.
Anonymous (September 25, 2007 @ 9:22am):
Thanks so much for your level-headed point of view. It's so easy to get sucked into only thinking of the intended consequences and not the unintended ones. Politicians, it seems, are not always as they seem. ; )
Anonymous (September 25, 2007 @ 11:25am):
Whoa. That is the most backwards "logic" I've ever read. Making college more accessible will hurt the workforce? Are you afraid you won't have someone at McDonald's serving you your breakfast because now they too can afford and participate in the "difficult" college workload? Oh yea, college is only for the elites. That's right- white supremacist economics...I thought UW was better than that.
Anonymous (September 25, 2007 @ 11:58am):
His logic is fine. It all comes down to personal preference and values. Some people do not value going to school, and therefore make those who value going to school miss out on opportunities that they really should get first dibs for.
Hypothetical situation that I'm sure every college student has been in. 1 seat left in a core mandatory general ed English class. You want to be in section whatever. It's between two people. You, who value your college experience, want to go. Someone else who doesn't value the class at all must take it because it's a General Ed class. With the increased accessibility of college due to increased Pell grants, you will now have people who don't value college as much as you do getting into college and potentially limiting your experience. You now have only a 50% chance of being able to get the section/class you want.
Not only that, but you have a group of people that are misinterpreting the true value of college. You realize that you are just going to be paying more in taxes to support all the increased government grants? Sure it looks like college will be cheaper, but everyone else is paying for your college tuition, which is not something people should be forced to do.
Anonymous (September 25, 2007 @ 1:23pm):
So you are implying that those without the money to attend college without a little help are also too stupid to do so... whoa that actually scares me... a lot! Get real, seriously!
Anonymous (September 25, 2007 @ 2:07pm):
I don't see the word "stupid" anywhere on this page.
He's not implying people who can't afford college are too stupid. All he is saying is that the government handing out more money to students does not accurately reflect the value of going to college. There will be an influx of students, who otherwise would've been gaining work experience (which would've benefited them in the end), now entering college because they think it's cheaper. Making college more affordable through artificial means won't change the attitude or work ethic of someone who didn't want to go to college in the first place. It'll just make them want to go because they think it's cheaper, and those who really value college are getting the shaft when it comes to smaller class sizes, individual attention, and job employment.
Wouldn't you rather cater to those students who value your schooling most than those who couldn't give a rip about it in the first place?
Anonymous (September 25, 2007 @ 2:11pm):
11:25:
"Whoa. That is the most backwards "logic" I've ever read."
You clearly need to read more.
"Making college more accessible will hurt the workforce?"
It will make college just another hoop to jump through before you can do the things that will actually make you competitive. This is already happening, and with more people going to college, it will happen even more. Moving in this direction simply increases the amount of debt necessary to enter a profession. Talk about increased competitiveness for the elite, for whom a high cost of training is not a problem.
"Are you afraid you won't have someone at McDonald's serving you your breakfast"
Um... what does that have to do with anything? You're trying to say that he thinks the unskilled labor force will go away? Because that is precisely not what he is saying. He's saying that if everyone goes to college, economically speaking college will be worth no more than a high school diploma, and therefore, a lot of people who went to college will end up having to work at McDonald's. Plus, lots of people work in food service while they're in college. Who in the hell doesn't have some kind of job in college? So... what?
(As an aside, McDonald's breakfast is iiiiiicky.)
"because now they too can afford and participate in the "difficult" college workload?"
Hey, what's up with you demeaning the difficulty of getting a college education? That's insulting to all the hard-working students out there.
"Oh yea, college is only for the elites."
In my opinion, it is for people with the intelligence necessary to learn the material. These might be high and mighty 'elites' to you, but don't you want higher education to mean something?
"That's right- white supremacist economics..."
First of all, the labels of left and right are limited to the point where they mean almost nothing.
Second of all, he made no mention of white supremacy. You're just making an ad-hominem attack, implying that he believes all of the same things as the people who use a decent understanding of economics to make policies that stratify people and that this makes him racist. Take a moment and think. Being a knee-jerk reactionary is stupid.
"I thought UW was better than that."
Waiwaiwait. So you think that he speaks for the whole university? Or do you want the UW to censor opinion colunmists? In either case, lame.
Anonymous (September 25, 2007 @ 2:17pm):
1:23:
"So you are implying that those without the money to attend college without a little help are also too stupid to do so..."
How did he imply that? Seriously, how?
"whoa that actually scares me... a lot! Get real, seriously!"
You and 11:25 need to stop making fun of people with different opinions than yours. The shunning of opinions that are not mainstream doesn't make for very good 'sifting and winnowing.' Or for very good opinions, decisions, and policy in general.
Anonymous (September 25, 2007 @ 2:39pm):
If you're smart enough to get into college and can't afford it, private scholarships will back you up. If you're not smart enough for college but go there anyway because it's cheap, you just missed out on income and job experience. That's the point he's making. Not that the poor are too stupid for college.
Anonymous (September 25, 2007 @ 6:11pm):
Can we please ban student loan sharks from commenting on college newspaper articles? These people are just as bad as credit-card marketers who swarm upon campus taking advantage of naive students.
Anonymous (September 25, 2007 @ 10:30pm):
College is fine if you already have money or you are really smart enough to be at the top of your class, but otherwise you should just apprentice as a plumber or electrician if you want to make a living. The loans will kill you otherwise.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 12:42am):
People won't come to Madison because it's "cheap." Loans just allow those of us who are smart to actually attend school.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 12:48am):
"College is fine if you already have money or you are really smart enough to be at the top of your class, but otherwise you should just apprentice as a plumber or electrician if you want to make a living. The loans will kill you otherwise."
The solution to this problem, of course, is to do everything the column tells us is bad and anti-AynRandian.
Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 11:11pm):
Look, all you have to do is look at the facts. The UW published a report last year showing that campus is getting whiter and richer. The income gap between high school graduates and college graduates increases every year. Why would someone from a working class or poor background not want to attend college if they had the financial resources?
Making an argument based on the fact that YOUR education will be demeaned because everyone will have the same chances as you is just plain wrong....unless, of course, you support inequality and elitism.
Stop the fear mongering. Change the status quo.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
