The Case AGAINST More People Going to College and More Government Involvement

New American analyzes Obama's push for more people to attend college and the SAFRA bill, with some great quotes by higher ed experts:

Alison Wolf, professor of public-sector management at King’s College in London:

Not only do the poor pay for the education of middle-class kids through either direct taxes or through increased costs of goods produced by American companies that must support the program through taxes, less money is available in the private sector to create businesses and provide jobs for everyone, meaning there are fewer jobs (and usually poorer paying jobs) and less opportunity for advancement for poor people.

Charles Murray, political scientist and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute: [asked who should pay for college education]

“Ideally, students themselves. If that means delaying college for a few years to save money, so much the better — every college professor has seen the difference in maturity and focus between kids straight out of high school and those who have worked or gone into the military for a few years.”

Career counselor Marty Nemko addressed the decreased investment of students and parents under a government-funded tuition program:

“The more the government and private donors (alumni, private scholarships) pay of the college tab, the less responsibly the student and family need to determine college’s cost-effectiveness. Also, every time the government increases financial aid or a private scholarship is set up, it merely allows college to raise their sticker prices more.” In other words, not only would free higher education diminish the work ethic of the students, but it would also allow for regular increases in tuition at the expense of the government, which of course would be accommodated by tax raises.

Alfred Roval, professor of education at the Regents University of Education:

“The focus on higher education gives me a little concern. That assumes that every job in this country needs a college education. That’s not the case. Some jobs don’t need one.”

Dennis Cauchon of USA Today on the preferential treatment afforded to those college graduates who pursue government positions:

“Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector. The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession...The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker’s pay to $71,206, compared with the $40,331 in the private sector.” Despite the discrepancy in pay that has already provided federal workers an advantage, Obama’s proposal forgives federal workers of their student-loan debt after 10 years, as opposed to 20 years for those employed in the private sector. This preference reflects President Obama’s anti-business, pro-big government attitude that he brought to the White House.

Richard K.Vedder, director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity:

“Sending marginal students to four-year degree programs, only to drop out, is a waste of human and financial resources, and lowers the quality of life for those involved.”

George Mason University professor Bryan Caplan:

greater college attendance has the opposite of the intended effect. Caplan believes that there is little connection between the skills acquired in college and those required in life.