The lifetime education tax

To continue my New York Times link binge, I offer this article on student debt, "Placing the Blame as Students are Buried in Debt."

Debt, whether of the mortgage, credit card, or student loan variety, is a dicey issue to consider, if for no other reason that the fact that both parties had to agree to the loan. However, the rising costs of attending college are worth considering, as student loans are nearly impossible to get rid of, even in bankruptcy court, and for their effect on financial decisions later in life.

The subject of the article, Cortney Munna, is down nearly a hundred grand in student loans. That's a significant life setback, especially when it has no bearing on her future earning potential. I will admit, that when I read that her degree was "an interdisciplinary degree in religious and women's studies," my first thought was that was a pretty stupid choice, highly likely to consign her to a lifetime of low earnings. But reflecting further, the reality is that most jobs now require a college degree, but not one that is in any way relevant to the job at hand. It is simply a new benchmark for employment, used to weed people out. And if most office jobs require no special skills beyond what we could term "general competency" then why shouldn't a student study whatever he or she is interested in, given that the likelihood of actually needing degree-specific knowledge is low?

So I'm back to square one, and perhaps the central question: what should be done when the cost of a "good" degree far outstrips the earning potential of occupations that are accessible with that degree? This catch-22 is present in huge swaths of education: law, journalism, most liberal arts degrees, and is becoming true in medicine as well. I know at least one person who has chosen to study to be a Physicians' Assistant rather than a doctor because of the cost and time associated with medical school, relative to her expected salary. In short, there are relatively few degrees that don't have this problem, notably computer science, engineering, and finance. And I think we can all agree that American society needs as many more finance grads as we can find. . .

What's the solution? If nothing else, perhaps it's time to refine the definition of a good school, and determine exactly what a student is paying for when he or she matriculates. Is it later earning power, which is vague and really unenforceable? Is it "the experience" in which case state schools might start to look like a lot more fun? Or is it simply a body of knowledge that makes for a better person and citizen, with the added benefit of potentially higher earnings?

This paradox won't be solved while every white collar job requires at least a bachelors degree in something (even blue collar jobs often require extensive certification and training). And the spillover effect is already becoming evident - undergraduate degrees are on their way to becoming so devalued as to be meaningless, necessitating graduate study, and it's corresponding costs, for meaningful employment. I remember quite clearly an editorial cartoon in a local paper, a couple years ago. A recent college grad was moving home after commencement, carrying a huge laundry bag on his shoulders labeled "debt." His parents told him, disapprovingly, "When we were your age, we started out with nothing," to which he replied "I'd have loved to start out with nothing." Unfortunately, that scenario continues to be all too true.

Wealth Disparity on steroids

"As of December 2009, median white wealth dipped 34 percent, to $94,600; median black wealth dropped 77 percent, to $2,100."

The above quote, from the most recent article in the New York Times series "The New Poor" is a staggering statistic. Now, while I'm sure a wealth disparity existed prior to the economic downturn, a median wealth figure of $2,100 is less than what even a starving recent college graduate possesses, if you count a car and a checking account. What ability does a black family with that median level of wealth have to weather any kind of hard time? And a median, by definition, means half the population has less than that. Living hand to mouth is not an enviable position, especially if you have a family to support and aspirations that are slowly being crushed. What will happen 5, 15, or 25 years from now to these people? Will they land on their feet, or be permanently and irreparably set back as decades of hard work have been wiped out in a blink?

Is this generation less brave?

Looking back in history, especially with the aid of such books as Tom Brokaw's "The Greatest Generation" I find myself wondering if those that came before us really were cast in a different mold. I usually come to the conclusion that the difference in perception stems from a lack of opportunity, not a lack of mettle. While our grandparents no doubt wished they had been spared the horrors of World War II, there is a certain satisfaction they can take in knowing that they were willing to answer the call and "do the right thing" when it was required of them. I, for one, occasionally envy them that feeling, that knowledge of themselves.

However, those who serve in the military today do so at great cost to themselves, and often lack the respect and recognition given to earlier generations of veterans. The popular narrative is that the American military is made up of stupid, poor, ignorant Christians who have no other life prospects than military service. This storyline marginalizes what is still an important and necessary role in our society that should be respected. A magazine article today puts this issue in terms of the lack of Medals of Valor that have been awarded to American servicemen and women in recent conflicts, and begs the question, is this generation less brave, or simply less noticed?

Read Katherine Zoepf's article "Why so few medals of honor."

Thanks, Petraeus

Now for the most part, I have no qualms with General Petraeus. I haven't kept an excessively close eye on the minutiae of his tenure, but this particular detail struck me this morning. Evidently, as part of a wider authorization of U.S. covert operations in countries around the world, Petraeus if focused on intelligence gathering by troops, as well as "academics, foreign business people, or others."

Great. Do he have any idea how often Americans abroad are assumed to be agents of the CIA? How many times journalists and students are accused of being part of the Zionist conspiracy, or working for the government? It's hard enough for many people to do their jobs and live their lives without having official policy give weight to the conspiracy theories of extremists. Now they'll have decent reason to surmise that Americans are all CIA spies, and many times (the sad ending of Daniel Pearl comes to mind) that has real consequences.

Muslim women can take care of themselves. . .

. . . and to prove that point, I'd like to present a witty and impassioned repudiation of France's ill-conceived "Burqa Ban" (which really isn't referring to a burqa for the most part anyway, but rather the niqab) The law was never about some vague notion of protecting women and French notions of equality, but rather about mandating conformity to social stereotypes and scoring points with a conservative base. The French and Belgian laws prohibiting such a manner of dress by women are the evil cousins of laws in Iran and Saudi Arabia mandating coverings for women. It's all about control.

That being said, check out Sheila Janmohamed's letter to President Sarkozy and enjoy a chuckle at politician being taken to task.

The Secret Muslim Agenda? . . . Total hotness

The guys over at Salon were privy to a discussion of the inside machinations of the worldwide Muslim conspiracy. What they found out? We've been completely duped. . .

"How Miss USA will push the secret Muslim agenda"

Also, the satire's author, Wajahat Ali, has a decent play "The Domestic Crusaders" that's worth seeing if you get the chance.

A Fanatic with 'good intentions'

The New York Times published an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali former-Muslim-turned-crusader, and unfortunately, it was a huge disappointment.

"Questions for Ayaan Hirsi Ali" was anything but, as the writer was too busy prompting her subject to expound on her experience with genital mutilation and the murder of Theo Van Goh to actually speak about anything substantive. It was a major let-down from a paper that usually sets a high bar for quality, and generally attempts fairness.

Ali is nearly as bad as those she criticizes, but she disguises her contempt with a veil of moral improvement. She has suffered so much at the hands of those who use their religion to justify violence, that she can no longer conceive of Islam as anything but violent. More frustratingly, she is cast as a feminist, even as she demonizes the choices of millions of women, labeling their devotion to Islam as oppression and assuming they too must be beaten. Her attitude is paternalistic and offensive, and it's a travesty that her voice is given the microphone in public discourse. I'm ashamed of the New York Times for promoting this one-sided rant as a legitimate interview. It's pieces like this that are a barrier to understanding, especially when underwritten by credible institutions who should know better.