jerseyshorejohnny
Well-known member
Clinton Should Listen to Kaine on Vocational Schools
Hillary’s proposals on debt-free college education would benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
By JAMES PIERESON / Wall Street Journal
Aug. 8, 2016
Before he was Hillary Clinton’s running mate Sen. Tim Kaine introduced a bill this spring that would provide more funding for career and technical education. A high-school diploma should not only prepare students for college, he said, but also for “getting a high-skilled job after graduation.” Mr. Kaine, the son of an ironworker and a home-economics teacher, knows the value of learning a trade. But the idea that not everyone should go to college puts him at odds with his new boss.
Mrs. Clinton says that “every student should be able to graduate from a public college or university in their state without taking on any student debt.” In addition to refinancing the loans of existing borrowers, the former secretary of state promises that community college will be free, that historically black colleges and other minority-serving institutions will get another $25 billion in public funds to help them out of financial trouble, and that child care will be subsidized for parents in school. This plan would cost about $350 billion, but that figure doesn’t include the additional funds state governments will be required to provide to qualify for federal grants. And this money is in addition to the roughly $75 billion that the federal government already provides to support higher education.
No doubt the Democratic ticket would say that college and technical education aren’t mutually exclusive—that every student can choose whichever path best suits his aspirations. But in reality, government has stressed college as the path all students should follow, much to the detriment of vocational and technical education. The U.S.’s drive toward universal higher education has mainly succeeded in dumbing down high-school curricula, creating useless college degrees, indebting students, and leaving far too many young people unprepared for the jobs already available to them.
The high dropout rate is one sign that too many people attend higher-education institutions. Only 56% of college students completed four-year degrees within six years, according to a 2011 report from Harvard’s Graduate School of Education. Less than 30% completed a two-year degree in three years. Many of the students surveyed reported that cost influenced their decision to leave, while others simply prefer to start working.
Even if they complete college, many graduates won’t find jobs—at least not right away. A 2016 survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers found that most companies are looking for graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, as well as business-related fields. Only seven of the 201 employers surveyed wanted to hire people who had majored in “area or gender studies.”
Those with degrees in these politically correct subjects were most likely to be working at age 25 in a job that didn’t require a college degree, according to an analysis of 2009 Labor Department data. These facts expose a great myth of this era: A college education is the only path to a decent job.
Mike Rowe, host of the show “Dirty Jobs,” recently explained the problem to Forbes magazine. The interviewer asked about unemployed college graduates who say “there are no good jobs left.” Mr. Rowe responded that one problem “is the constantly evolving definition of what a ‘good’ job actually is. Collectively, we’ve discouraged our kids from pursuing a whole category of perfectly good jobs, because we don’t see them as aspirational.”
The bias against vocations, from carpentry and welding to the maintenance of high-tech machinery and computer repair, means that discussions of higher education typically neglect these paths. Philanthropists are more likely to fund scholarships for a few poor students to attend elite colleges, even if the same amount of money would allow dozens of young people to gain certification as electricians, mechanics and computer technicians—fields in which jobs go unfilled thanks to a shortage of qualified applicants.
Mrs. Clinton’s proposals would also benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. While she claims that debt relief will help the working class, the truth is that high-income borrowers have taken on the most government debt. They assume these risks to pursue careers in high-paying fields like law or medicine. They are also more likely to borrow to pay for room and board while poorer students commute to local schools.
“The richest 25 percent of families hold 40 percent of the student loans, so would receive roughly 40 percent of the benefits of a proposal that allowed all loan debt to be refinanced at lower rates,” noted Matthew M. Chingos and Beth Akers of the Brookings Institution. “On the other side of the income spectrum, the poorest quarter of households would receive less than one-fifth of the benefits of such a proposal.”
For those worried about income inequality, technical and vocational education should receive more emphasis as a path to upward mobility. As Mike Rowe says, “Learning how to weld, or how to run electric, or how to install a toilet—these skills can and often do lead to fulfilling careers, balanced lives, and better than average pay. Even if you don’t spend the rest of your life working in the trades, there’s simply no downside to learning a skill.” Perhaps Mr. Kaine can point this out to his running mate.
Mr. Piereson is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Hillary’s proposals on debt-free college education would benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
By JAMES PIERESON / Wall Street Journal
Aug. 8, 2016
Before he was Hillary Clinton’s running mate Sen. Tim Kaine introduced a bill this spring that would provide more funding for career and technical education. A high-school diploma should not only prepare students for college, he said, but also for “getting a high-skilled job after graduation.” Mr. Kaine, the son of an ironworker and a home-economics teacher, knows the value of learning a trade. But the idea that not everyone should go to college puts him at odds with his new boss.
Mrs. Clinton says that “every student should be able to graduate from a public college or university in their state without taking on any student debt.” In addition to refinancing the loans of existing borrowers, the former secretary of state promises that community college will be free, that historically black colleges and other minority-serving institutions will get another $25 billion in public funds to help them out of financial trouble, and that child care will be subsidized for parents in school. This plan would cost about $350 billion, but that figure doesn’t include the additional funds state governments will be required to provide to qualify for federal grants. And this money is in addition to the roughly $75 billion that the federal government already provides to support higher education.
No doubt the Democratic ticket would say that college and technical education aren’t mutually exclusive—that every student can choose whichever path best suits his aspirations. But in reality, government has stressed college as the path all students should follow, much to the detriment of vocational and technical education. The U.S.’s drive toward universal higher education has mainly succeeded in dumbing down high-school curricula, creating useless college degrees, indebting students, and leaving far too many young people unprepared for the jobs already available to them.
The high dropout rate is one sign that too many people attend higher-education institutions. Only 56% of college students completed four-year degrees within six years, according to a 2011 report from Harvard’s Graduate School of Education. Less than 30% completed a two-year degree in three years. Many of the students surveyed reported that cost influenced their decision to leave, while others simply prefer to start working.
Even if they complete college, many graduates won’t find jobs—at least not right away. A 2016 survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers found that most companies are looking for graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, as well as business-related fields. Only seven of the 201 employers surveyed wanted to hire people who had majored in “area or gender studies.”
Those with degrees in these politically correct subjects were most likely to be working at age 25 in a job that didn’t require a college degree, according to an analysis of 2009 Labor Department data. These facts expose a great myth of this era: A college education is the only path to a decent job.
Mike Rowe, host of the show “Dirty Jobs,” recently explained the problem to Forbes magazine. The interviewer asked about unemployed college graduates who say “there are no good jobs left.” Mr. Rowe responded that one problem “is the constantly evolving definition of what a ‘good’ job actually is. Collectively, we’ve discouraged our kids from pursuing a whole category of perfectly good jobs, because we don’t see them as aspirational.”
The bias against vocations, from carpentry and welding to the maintenance of high-tech machinery and computer repair, means that discussions of higher education typically neglect these paths. Philanthropists are more likely to fund scholarships for a few poor students to attend elite colleges, even if the same amount of money would allow dozens of young people to gain certification as electricians, mechanics and computer technicians—fields in which jobs go unfilled thanks to a shortage of qualified applicants.
Mrs. Clinton’s proposals would also benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. While she claims that debt relief will help the working class, the truth is that high-income borrowers have taken on the most government debt. They assume these risks to pursue careers in high-paying fields like law or medicine. They are also more likely to borrow to pay for room and board while poorer students commute to local schools.
“The richest 25 percent of families hold 40 percent of the student loans, so would receive roughly 40 percent of the benefits of a proposal that allowed all loan debt to be refinanced at lower rates,” noted Matthew M. Chingos and Beth Akers of the Brookings Institution. “On the other side of the income spectrum, the poorest quarter of households would receive less than one-fifth of the benefits of such a proposal.”
For those worried about income inequality, technical and vocational education should receive more emphasis as a path to upward mobility. As Mike Rowe says, “Learning how to weld, or how to run electric, or how to install a toilet—these skills can and often do lead to fulfilling careers, balanced lives, and better than average pay. Even if you don’t spend the rest of your life working in the trades, there’s simply no downside to learning a skill.” Perhaps Mr. Kaine can point this out to his running mate.
Mr. Piereson is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.