Category: Civic Issues

America is currently in an economic disaster. And no, I’m not talking about the rising cost of gas. I’m referring to the student loan crisis and the unreasonable rise of the cost of higher education. Over the past decade, the tuition of many universities and colleges has skyrocketed, leaving little to no students able to pay for it out of pocket. Students are able to apply for federal student aid through the FAFSA application, however this process is much more time consuming, stressful, and complicated than it should be. Also, after all of this hassle, many students receive little to no financial aid.

According to data obtained from Education Data Initiative, the average federal grant amount awarded to individual students annually is $5,179. As we college students know, this amount will not get you very far. This might just be able to cover your cost of a meal plan and textbooks for two semesters. Many middle-class students also receive substantially less than this amount, which can be frustrating for most. They are not deemed needy enough in the eyes of the federal government, yet they are unable to fund their education by themselves without some form of assistance. So, as the cost of tuition continues to rise, students must turn to other sources to help pay their annual costs.

Despite the cost of tuition rising, the minimum wage (which most high school students earn at their part-time jobs) has not risen proportionally with it. Decades ago, students were once able to pay for their own education through their earnings at their part-time and summer jobs. However, this expectation is no longer realistic and would be a nearly impossible feat to accomplish if attending a large, for-profit institution. According to Education Data Initiative, the annual tuition at a four-year public college in 1963 was $2,207 (when adjusted for inflation). This cost could have easily been funded by students themselves, but it no longer can be today after a 324% increase in tuition. Thus, students turn to the next option available to them—student loans.

Currently, roughly 43.4 million past and present students have federal student loan debt. This results in over $1.6 trillion in the outstanding Federal Loan Portfolio. On average, an individual’s federal student loan debt balance is $37,113. A price so high can be extremely difficult to pay off right out of college, especially if students do not get a stable, high-paying job right away. They must also pay for other things, like rent for a new living situation or other bills now that they are living on their own. The situation is then made even worse due to the fact that student loans require interest payments. The longer you take to pay off your loan, which can be considerably long due to external factors previously mentioned, the more your loan payments will cost. As interest rates on your loans accumulate over time, you will just have to pay more and more. This can create a helpless hole for some students, that only gets dug deeper and deeper with time. If they were struggling to pay off the initial amount, how would they be able to pay off an increased amount with accumulated interest? This is how many people get trapped within their student loans, and they can take decades to be fully paid off.

For this reason, many believe that all interest rates on federal student loans should be eliminated. This will ease the pressure off of students and will avoid trapping them in that endless hole of feeling behind. Students can pay back their loans when they are fully able without the fear of falling behind and accumulating even more debt. According to Fortune Education, eliminating interest rates would save the average student around $50 a month. This may not seem like a lot at first, but it definitely adds up over time, especially for those who are already financially struggling. However, as with any proposed solution, there are cons with this idea. The federal government charges interest as a way to reduce risk when loaning out money. They also do this as a way to incentive people to pay back their loans in a timely manner. Also, without interest rates, many politicians fear taxpayers would have to make up for the lost government revenue. So, as with most partisan decisions today, this debate seems to be at a standstill.

Another proposed solution is much more drastic: to forgive all student loan debt completely. President Biden has a current freeze on student loan payments due to financial hardships for many caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, but most progressives believe he should pause all payments indefinitely. This would allow students to move on with their lives and spend their money freely in ways that will more directly support businesses and the economy. This will also encourage those of all financial backgrounds to apply for college, as they no longer would have to fear of crippling debt when they graduate. However, opposers to this idea argue that the government would lose out on billions of dollars, and it would also be unfair to students who had already paid off their loans on time. While this is a very difficult decision to make as there are many consequences to both solutions, I do know for sure that something has to be done to improve the cost crisis of higher education.

College and university tuition is currently extremely high, and it continues to rise. These exceedingly high prices discourage many financially disadvantaged students from attending college, which can cause universities to miss out on high-end talent and intelligence. Whether the solution is lowering tuition costs, distributing a greater amount of federal student aid grants, eliminating student loan interest rates, or forgiving student loan debt altogether, something must be done in order to make higher education more equitable and accessible for all, regardless of financial status. The United States is currently in a crisis surrounding the cost of higher education, and I do believe if not solved efficiently and effectively, it will have harmful effects on the country as a whole.

https://educationdata.org/financial-aid-statistics

https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-statistics

https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college

https://fortune.com/education/business/articles/2021/11/24/could-0-interest-rates-settle-the-student-loan-debate/

 

The SAT’s. We all suffered through them. Well, actually, maybe we didn’t. The SAT’s have been one of the main requirements in the college admissions process for years, but we saw a shift in that these past few years. When Covid hit, it was hard for students to take the test. It requires going to a public, proctored testing center, and when it was time for current college freshmen to take the test, the world was shut down. We weren’t able to take the SAT, so colleges began making the standardized tests optional in the application process. What was once the main factor in college admissions was now no longer considered at all.

For many students and researchers alike, this was a huge win. Not only were students no longer stressed about getting the perfect score needed to get into their dream school, but researchers were glad the heavily criticized tests were put to a halt. For years many have argued that the SAT and similar standardized tests like the ACT are unfair and discriminatory. They claim that the test itself is more geared toward students of higher financial status. It may be hard at first for unsuspecting students to see the systemic bias within the SAT, but all the evidence is there if you look deep enough. So, let’s dive in.

In 1926, the first SAT’s were administered by the College Board. The College Board created these multiple-choice tests with the commissioned help of Carl Brigham. Brigham was a popular psychologist at the time who was working on other standardized tests, like placement tests within the United States’ army. However, Brigham was also a eugenicist. He often openly preached about the “threat” of allowing people of color to enter U.S. public schools and universities and made it very clear that he was adamantly against this intermingling of society. Because of this, many researchers and educators argue that the SAT is inherently racist. Brigham was said to design a test that would discriminate against African Americans and other minority groups as a way to prevent their admission into universities. Even if this wasn’t the main goal of the College Board, there is no doubt that Brigham’s biases were present at the birth of these tests.

While the SAT today isn’t as openly racist or discriminatory, many believe it is still discriminatory in other ways. Namely, many believe standardized tests discriminate against those of lower financial status. To start, the SAT’s do cost money to take. An SAT in the 2021-2022 school year costs $55 to take. This number may not seem like a lot at first, however it quickly adds up when you take into consideration the fact that students retake the exam many times. According to studies conducted by the Harvard Graduate School of Education, retaking the SAT will improve your score by 90 points, on average. Because of this, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that students will earn better scores if they retake the test as much as possible. However, this is not a reality for students who are economically disadvantaged. They cannot take the SAT as many times as they want. It becomes very expensive, and families cannot afford to spend money to take the same test over and over again. However, families of affluence can. Students of high financial status can afford to take the test as many times as possible, earning a higher and higher score each time. This is just one of the many disparities we see in SAT test scores between those of differing financial backgrounds.

Researchers also argue that the SAT isn’t a true test of intelligence, but rather a test to see how well you can memorize and prepare for a certain type of exam. Because of this, once again, those of high financial status are at an advantage. According to a study conducted by the Hechinger Report, most students in affluent school districts pay for private tutoring from professional test-takers. Here, they receive tips and tricks on how to take the SAT and best answer all of the questions. This is problematic because they aren’t really learning new knowledge, they are simply learning how to outsmart the test. However, yet again, those in financially tight households may not be able to afford a tutor. According to research conducted by CNBC, students in wealthier school districts are also more likely to have standardized test preparation classes offered by their school. The types of classes teach students how to do better on the tests and provide them with strategies on how to answer common types of questions. A student who has taken a class like this obviously has a leg up on a student who hasn’t.

The College Board also offers official SAT test preparation books, which are also not free. The official SAT 2020 study guide was $29.99. For an organization that claims to be a nonprofit, they really do know how to rake in the cash. This can be extremely frustrating for a student, as you realistically have to pay the College Board, whether through the purchase of practice books or simply the price of the SAT itself, in order to apply and get accepted into most prominent colleges and universities. Currently, it seems as if the College Board has a monopoly on higher education in the United States. This is just another reason as to why students of lower financial status potentially have an unfair disadvantage in standardized testing and application processes.

We have seen colleges and universities make their applications test optional these past two years, and some have even removed the option to submit scores altogether. What is stopping them from keeping it this way once things get back to normal? I doubt there have been any drastic differences in who admissions officers would typically accept versus who they are accepting now without SAT scores. Perhaps research can be conducted to see if there are any significant differences or if standardized test scores don’t matter as much as many people believe. Either way, I do believe something needs to be changed about the current SAT practices and how they typically discriminate against students of lower financial status.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html

https://hechingerreport.org/newest-advantage-rich-america-higher-grades/

https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/racist-beginnings-standardized-testing

 

Nearly forty years ago, scholars developed an idea called critical race theory. It was the idea that race does and has always played an important role in United States history, and it must be studied as such. What was originally just a way to look at history and policy in a new light has now become a heavy topic for debate across the nation.

This past summer, Derek Chauvin’s senseless murder of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, sparked national outrage and was the catalyst for a spark of racial awareness within the United States. Protests were held across the country, and the Black Lives Matter movement was the most talked about it had ever been. People were becoming more socially conscious about the systemic racism that is still prevalent in the United States today and began to do something about it. Many people took to educating themselves on the situation and promoted practices to be adamantly antiracist. However, as it seems to happen with everything nowadays, there was also opposition to these ideas.Many conservative politicians and talk show hosts argued that this new kind of thinking was a bad thing. They said it made the United States seem like a bad place to live and made white people out to be villains. This attack on antiracist thinking soon found a new subject to fixate on—critical race theory.

According to the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-critical-race-theory.html) the term only resurfaced this past year on Fox News’s Tucker Carlson Tonight. Tucker is a conservative news reporter who is renowned for stirring the pot on subjects like these, and he often has guests on his show with this same mindset. His guest, Christopher Rufo, went on a rant about the “cult indoctrination” of children in schools and their learning of critical race theory. Donald Trump got wind of this interview, and the rest is history.

Donald Trump himself took a new fixation on the idea and spewed twisted facts about how it was brainwashing and harming American children. While he has since been voted out of office and we aren’t subjected to his rants anymore, this tirade did not go without consequence. His followers believed heavily in his cause and have been on a critical race theory attack ever since.Republican governors and state legislatures have been trying to ban this teaching of critical race theory in schools since, despite it not really being a concrete part of any school’s curriculum.

Nonetheless, thirty-six states have since introduced bills that would restrict teaching critical race theory in the classroom, according to an analysis conducted by Education Week (https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-race-theory-is-under-attack/2021/06). As stated earlier, there is actually no set “critical race theory” that is found is school curriculum, so it can be confusing to recognize what these state legislators are actually trying to accomplish. However, if you look closely at the language in these proposed bills, it is easy to see that these government members are trying to censor and control the narrative of what is being taught in K-12 public school classrooms.

For example, a new bill that was proposed in New Hampshire bans the teaching of “any doctrine or theory promoting a negative account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America.” This bill, if passed, would be extremely alarming. It essentially is telling educators to rewrite history in order to not make the United States look bad. Quite frankly, the founding of the United States of America wasinherently negative. It began with the genocide of the Indigenous population, and to deny teaching that in the classroom would be denying the struggles of all Native American people. Millions of Native American people died during the “founding” of this country, and it would be incredibly irresponsible to just sweep it under the rug and pretend like it never happened. This bill also suggests excluding the teaching of slavery from public school curriculum, as this was definitely a negative occurrence in the history of the United States. Once again, we cannot just sweep this under the rug. It is important to teach this in history classes and be reminded of our past mistakes so that we never commit these horrible acts again.

As you can reasonably assume, these types of proposed bills have sparked controversy across the nation. Many people, including most teachers, argue that this would be a concerning amount of censorship in school classrooms. Would teachers not be allowed to teach accurate representations in history class? Would they have to sugarcoat topics to make the white children feel better? White parents argue that critical race theory would make their children feel bad about themselves and would picture themselves as the villains in the story. They say they are too young to learn about the harsh realities of things like racism. However, children of color are already familiar with racism at this age, no matter if they experienced it firsthand or learned it in a classroom. Is it really fair to allow white students to remain in ignorant bliss in fear of hurting their feelings while students of color must face racism alone and won’t be allowed to talk about it in schools?

Overall, this attack on critical race theory should be taken for what it really is—an attempt to censor what is being taught to children in public schools all across the country. For a nation that prides itself on personal rights and the freedom of speech, this would seem like a ridiculous idea. However, it is the sad reality we face today. If successful, teachers would face serious punishment for teaching students about the true history of the United States and, in turn, would most likely cause a negative effect on teaching and learning in public schools, which is already considerably worse compared to that of other developed nations. In my opinion, censorship has no place in education, and only bad things come from it. Students must learn the history of this country—the true, unfiltered history—in order to be the best citizens they can be.