Here I am again, surfing the AP wire, looking for inspiration.
As usual, it is not long until I find some. I’m skimming the nationwide headlines when I come across an interesting little tidbit. According to the wire, Congress has approved a panel to look into federal financial aid.
We all know what a wonderful job they do, too. Yet, they are not looking at the problem of which you are probably thinking. It’s much more, uh, disturbing.
Apparently middle class college students are in danger of getting too much financial aid. That’s right folks – you heard it here first – the government is obviously giving you too much.
There is, the panel is concerned, a growing rift between the number of need-based scholarships (where you just don’t have the money) as opposed to merit-based scholarships (where your grades actually matter).
This is causing a concern among the panel that “qualified,” underprivileged students will be shut out. Give me a break, folks.
First of all, if you are “qualified” to get into college, then merit-based scholarships shouldn’t be that big of a deal.
Maybe Congress is concerned about the dearth of unqualified students who only get into college because of some government contract.
Which is not to say that need-based scholarships are bad, or that all students on those scholarships don’t deserve to be in college.
I am saying that it is insulting that the government places more concern on finance and political correctness than on the conditions of schools to which people are being sent.
Here is a really unorthodox idea. Let’s cut out all need-based financial aid. Shift part over to increasing the scale and number of merit-based scholarships and use the remainder to fund institutions of higher education. That way we can keep all the lights on when some state legislature is too cowardly to stand up and do something about a certain budget crisis.
Granted, the money shifted would make small impact; you can only divide dollars so far.
But $75,000 might keep a library open for 24 hours a day, hire another faculty member, expand student programs or maybe even allow students to cut into philosophy classes (but let’s not get our hopes up).
I guess it sounds cold-hearted, but it’s a big problem with education that focuses on quantity instead of quality. We have more schools with too many students, too few qualified teachers and a depressing standardized test record.
One must wonder about an education system that allows an elementary school teacher to keep his job as long as he is proficient in two out of three subjects.
There’s nothing like job security for lazy and/or stupid people.
Tenure is both good and bad. With some, it gives them more freedom and security to teach, and it makes them that much better. Others use it as an excuse to quit doing their job altogether.
I am not saying we should end tenure, but it does have some problems. Yet, some of the best professors I have had have been able to teach what they have, the way they have, because of the security of tenure.
The biggest pro is the biggest con. Tenure can remove a teacher from many of the inhibitions of administrative politics (in other words, it is job security).
Yet, who’s to say? Perhaps we should raise the minimum income for need-based scholarships.
Let’s give tenure (subject to annual review, not evaluation) to more teachers. Maybe one day we can have a lowered student-teacher ratio and education will mean more than just a tax figure.

Author