United States: The Other Debate on Higher Education
If one debate has been making the headlines for several weeks in our province, it is the debate on the cost of, and more broadly, the access to higher education.
On one hand, we blithely compare ourselves to other Canadian provinces, while on the other hand we fear that the increase in school tuitions (or rights) is our first step toward becoming a system like the United States, which we regard as the self-proclaimed kingdom of paying users.
It is true that there is a huge gap between the cost of higher education here and in the United States. According to the 2009-2010 figures determined by the U.S. Department of Education, the annual cost of higher education in America is about $17,000 per year.
Our goal here is not to compare expenses or to take a stance on the issue, but to bring one element to light: No matter the cost of studies, we need to offer subventions, whether they are issued by the government or by private institutions. At the dawn of the presidential election, a debate has appeared on the horizon: the issue of financial aid. This debate is not unfamiliar to us, given the events in recent weeks.
So, how are things working for our southern neighbors? Let me remind you that back in 2007 the George W. Bush administration ratified a law aimed at reducing the interest rates for student loans, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, until … 2012. So, these interest rates should increase on July 1. However, President Obama maintained last Friday that he planned to extend this 2007 law.
In a country like the U.S., where political quarrels never end, the Republicans protested right away against this motion. Nonetheless, the two parties agreed on one thing: avoiding a drastic increase in rates. The Republicans raised another objection: If this motion were to be extended, someone would have to absorb the cost, and this someone would be taxpayers.
And here we are propelled into yet another political game where the two parties keep passing the buck. Since last week, the president has been addressing more campuses because, according to the White House, if the interest rate were to increase back up to 6.8 percent, nearly seven million American students would end up with an additional annual debt of $1,000.
The Republicans argued that maintaining the current rate would cost $6 billion and that the Democrats should focus on saving instead of spending. The president answered: We will reduce tax breaks given to oil companies. Filibuster threats are looming, and so on, as our neighbors say...
Nonetheless, according to me, there is one important thing to remember in an American debate, which seems so distant to us: Aside from the political and ideological quarrels, people will still end up paying, and unfortunately, it could be those who cannot afford it.
On one hand, we blithely compare ourselves to other Canadian provinces, while on the other hand we fear that the increase in school tuitions (or rights) is our first step toward becoming a system like the United States, which we regard as the self-proclaimed kingdom of paying users.
It is true that there is a huge gap between the cost of higher education here and in the United States. According to the 2009-2010 figures determined by the U.S. Department of Education, the annual cost of higher education in America is about $17,000 per year.
Our goal here is not to compare expenses or to take a stance on the issue, but to bring one element to light: No matter the cost of studies, we need to offer subventions, whether they are issued by the government or by private institutions. At the dawn of the presidential election, a debate has appeared on the horizon: the issue of financial aid. This debate is not unfamiliar to us, given the events in recent weeks.
So, how are things working for our southern neighbors? Let me remind you that back in 2007 the George W. Bush administration ratified a law aimed at reducing the interest rates for student loans, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, until … 2012. So, these interest rates should increase on July 1. However, President Obama maintained last Friday that he planned to extend this 2007 law.
In a country like the U.S., where political quarrels never end, the Republicans protested right away against this motion. Nonetheless, the two parties agreed on one thing: avoiding a drastic increase in rates. The Republicans raised another objection: If this motion were to be extended, someone would have to absorb the cost, and this someone would be taxpayers.
And here we are propelled into yet another political game where the two parties keep passing the buck. Since last week, the president has been addressing more campuses because, according to the White House, if the interest rate were to increase back up to 6.8 percent, nearly seven million American students would end up with an additional annual debt of $1,000.
The Republicans argued that maintaining the current rate would cost $6 billion and that the Democrats should focus on saving instead of spending. The president answered: We will reduce tax breaks given to oil companies. Filibuster threats are looming, and so on, as our neighbors say...
Nonetheless, according to me, there is one important thing to remember in an American debate, which seems so distant to us: Aside from the political and ideological quarrels, people will still end up paying, and unfortunately, it could be those who cannot afford it.