Since their inception in 1965, Pell Grants have been doled out haphazardly. The financial need of a recipient has always been the main determinant of whether or not he or she receives federal aid. But no effort has been made to link these state-funded college payouts to the quality of the grantee’s education.
During his “College Affordability Bus Tour” this August, President Obama sought to add nuance to the current program, rolling out a plan to make colleges accountable for their costs. His proposal hinges on a ranking system — to be created by the government — in which colleges are ordered according to graduation rates, post-graduation income, and a few other criteria. Once these ratings are in place, a school’s rank will determine how much federal aid its pupils are eligible to receive.
In principle, adding accountability to a system in which many institutions are overpriced is wise. In practice, however, the specific provisions of Obama’s plan are nightmarish steps in the federal government’s ongoing campaign against humanists, artists, and, ironically, civil servants.
As mentioned, one of the primary metrics in this proposed government ranking system will be the post-graduation earnings of a university’s student body. While finance and engineering majors — and the institutions they attend — will benefit, those studying social work will be screwed.
In an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, Gloria Nemerowicz of the Yes We Must Coalition — a group of 33 colleges with low-income student bodies — explained that many students at these institutions intentionally serve their communities at the expense of their own financial welfare, taking degrees in education, social psychology, and the like.
“That’s not their fault,” she said. “That’s the social order’s fault.”
Artists and humanists also face severe defunding under the president’s plan as their post-graduation incomes are bound to be relatively low.
Those who support Obama’s new provisions may point out that English and philosophy majors and all other students of the “soft” subjects will bolster the American economy less than their peers in the sciences. We shouldn’t sponsor the underprivileged if they’re interested in non-lucrative fields, the argument goes. But this way of thinking — to which the president has apparently subscribed — belies an incomplete view of the purpose of state-sponsored grants.
For many constituents, the main purpose of Pell grants and related programs is the equalization of opportunity. Two students of equal merit shouldn’t be denied access to education because one is poor and another wealthy. Similarly, one shouldn’t be forced to study a field in which he is uninterested, simply because he lacks the means to do otherwise.
For Obama, however, Pell grants are merely an investment, and the students are merely human capital, learning a productive, vocational task.
This second approach is internally logical; after all, there’s something to be said for “investing in our future” as the hackneyed phrase goes.
But we almost mustn’t cast aside our basic principles of justice during our collective pursuit of economic gain. In a truly just society, the arts and humanities — and careers in pursuit of social fairness — aren’t the realm only of the rich.
Image credit: strivengrind.com