Free tertiary education and forgiveness of student loans are political promises that make no sense

Dear Editor,

This is the “silly” season and true to form, we are witnessing political promises that make no sense from a national development standpoint – free tertiary education, forgiveness of student loans, and establishment of a law school. The sole intent is to use taxpayers funding, or promises to do so, to garner votes.

The forgiveness of student loans incurred in the pursuit of a tertiary education originated elsewhere and is the position of some “progressive” candidates in the United States presidential election campaign now underway there, namely Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. There are over 44 million students in debt in the US representing a huge market for politicians to tap into for “vote-buying”. This promise is usually combined with universal/free tertiary education which, without clear goals in mind, is simply wasteful.

There are too many resources being wasted on degrees that have little or no value. People have a right to make decisions on the level of education they wish to attain, fields to be certified in and how to pay for it, but no right to use public funding to pay for their mistakes. The test of whether a decision has merit or not, lies in the student’s ability to repay its loans. When the cost of certification is higher than income from it, loans will go unpaid. These loans are the consequence of poor decisionmaking and taxpayers should not be asked to bail them out. If the market judges the decision as poor, it can’t be good for national development.

Further, students after completing their secondary education, choose one of three paths to a career. Some pursue a tertiary education, others, technical training and the remainder enter the labour market. Such decisions are made for several reasons including affordability, economic circumstances, and intellectual capabilities. To offer benefits to students on only one of these paths without tying this to economic development goals is discriminatory.

And then there is the issue of those who act responsibly in financing the cost of their education, as opposed to the indolent attitude of others incurring loans, being penalized for their industriousness. The New York Times recently published interviews with students and here are a couple testimonials from the responsible ones:

“I work night shifts for U.P.S. four days a week and on Sundays. That fully covers my tuition. My sleep schedule is very unconventional. I also intern for a gubernatorial campaign (I’m a political science major). They want to promote me and it’d be a great move for my career, but I’m afraid it would be too much for me. On top of all of this are classes. It’s really hard to balance, but my mind is pretty focused on the future. It gives me a lot of hope.”

Parker Malatesta, 22, Louisville, Ky.

“I took my time and worked in restaurants. My parents initially helped me pay for undergrad at the University of New Hampshire, where I spent a year and a half. When I left that school, I also left my

parents’ funding, but that was O.K. Paying for my own education made me value it more and allowed me to do it in my own time. I saved money, moved to California and worked in restaurants while gaining residency there. When I was 22, I started taking as many inexpensive community college classes as I could apply toward my (eventual) degree in environmental studies. When I was 28, I transferred to San Francisco State and — still working in restaurants and peppering in internships and volunteering — graduated two years later.”

Lauren Tecosky, 40, Brooklyn, N.Y. These are the attributes of hard work and independence a country would want to develop in its citizenry, not incentivize those lacking these traits with debt forgiveness.

So, our politicians should stop promising freebies to get elected; any good or service that is free is abused and wasted and not in the best interest of the country. Instead, and given that education is an essential ingredient to development, we would want them to concentrate on establishing and staffing premier tertiary schools with the standing of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) or a California Institute of Technology (Caltech), and incentivize and facilitate low-income students with appropriate qualifications to attend them. Such vision is far preferable to student debt forgiveness, free tertiary education for all, or the establishment of a law school. The latter has never contributed to development, anywhere.

Yours faithfully,

Louis Holder