Maureen Lane

Priority Gap

In the business section of the New York Times on Sunday, Anna Bernasek's article "What's the Return on Education?" posits, "If economists are right, higher education is not just a part of the cost of maintaining a functioning democracy, but a source of wealth creation for all. That means that investing in the education of every American is in everyone's self-interest."

Bernasek's piece notes that spending on higher education has been relatively flat for decades. In New York we can tell that it is not a real priority. The governor has repeatedly raised college tuitions and called for cuts to the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP). Anya Kammentz had a great op-ed in the New York Times where she calls for more money in grants like Pell. I applaud her piece and continue to foster public support for government's role in access to higher education for all.

For the last few months New York Times David Brooks New York Times columnist, David Brooks, has been making an argument about cultural inequality being the true inequality now a days. Brooks ties the decreasing opportunity for poor Americans to get access to the good things in life to their lack of education. I would agree except that Brooks thinks the lack of education is less about affording a college education than about certain social and academic confidences.

Brooks is on the right track about higher education as a key vehicle for equal opportunity in America today. However, I think he needs to read the New York Times business section occasionally to even out his position on higher education spending. If economists and most Americans are right and education helps the individual, our democracy and the economy, how is our current government's low commitment to college education access for poor, low-income and middle class students defensible?

Maureen Lane: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 8:59 AM, Dec 13, 2005 in Economy | Education | Employment
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comment on this post