Comments on: The postsecondary education investment Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: OneOfTheSheep Sun, 29 Sep 2013 01:02:46 +0000 Mr. Gunderson, I have seldom read an example of more pure academic bovine scat from academia.

“…institutions have a responsibility to deliver education in the most effective, efficient way possible…”. Well, duh?

“we have entered a period where postsecondary education is imperative for global competitiveness and economic growth, but it needs to be an education that prepares students for success in the workplace”. This could have been taken from a college brochure in circulation in the nineteen fifties.

At that time you could get a laugh by asking the difference between a can of Alpo (dog food) and a recent college graduate. The “punch line” was that the can of Alpo had “content”.

If one looks at the student debt being rolled up today and the utter mismatch between the people annually exiting “the process” from our institutions of higher learning and what American “commerce” needs to be globally competitive it is more appropriate to cry than laugh.

“New traditional students work full-time while attending school, don’t live on campus because they have a family, pay for education with money they personally saved, and/or are enrolled in a certificate program.” America is producing far, far more college graduates than it needs and employers are going to hire the “best of the best”.

That’s NOT going to be, for the most part, these “new traditional students” who enter the rat race with one hand tied behind themselves and little, if any, personal examples to follow or inspire. Funding the “many” to foster “the exception” is a good sales pitch, but a monumentally poor investment of public priority and funds.

“…all institutions — even private sector ones — will then be forced to limit access to students with a lower possibility for success. Many of these students are the first in their family to attend college, work full-time or are unable to self-finance their education. In other words, if you are deemed to have lower possibility of completion and employment, America no longer has an interest in giving you a chance to obtain an education.” You got it. At some point America must limit limited available subsidy to those most likely to help it survive in a hostile world.

“…we must also design and deliver a higher education system that provides opportunity for education, skills, and real economic growth for all Americans. If we fail to do so, we’ll ignore the promise of the American Dream for all our citizens. And a nation divided between rich and poor cannot last.” We will have little choice but to prioritize limited educational opportunity for our “best and brightest in times of decreasing resources. We should not make promises we cannot keep.

There is a “natural divide” between “rich and poor” in EVERY ECONOMY that exists today and has ever existed. While it is probably true that, sooner or later, every nation falls, no matter how powerful (Rome did); to infer that greater “equality” might somehow change the inevitable is a unproven theory at best.