Noam Chomsky on Democracy and Education in the 21st Century and Beyond

villain

Superstar
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
4,515
Reputation
563
Daps
12,744
Reppin
berlin
Full interview: Noam Chomsky on Democracy and Education in the 21st Century and Beyond

Falcone: Yes, right. Well before I would go into discussing the 21st century, can you comment on this country's history with education, and what tradition do you think we have grown out of in terms of education?

Chomsky: That's an interesting question. The US was kind of a pioneer in mass public education. Actually, this here is land-grant university which is part of the big 19th-century expansion of our education through federal grant. And most of them are out in the West, but this is one. And also, just-for-children mass public education, which is a pretty good thing. It wasn't a major contribution, but it had qualifications. For one thing, it was partly concerned with taking a country of independent farmers, many of them pretty radical. You go back to the late 19th century, the Farmer's Alliance was coming out of Texas and was the most radical popular Democratic organization anywhere in history, I think. It's hard to believe if you look at Texas today.

And these were independent farmers. They stick up for their rights - they didn't want to be slaves. And they had to be driven into factories and turned into tools for someone else. There's a lot of resistance to it. So a lot of public education was, in fact, concerned with trying to teach independent people to become workers in an industrial system.

And there was more to it than that. Actually, Ralph Waldo Emerson commented on it. He said something like this: he hears a lot of political leaders saying that we have to have mass public education. And the reason is that millions of people are getting the vote, and we have to educate them to keep them from our throats. In other words, we have to train them in obedience and servility, so they're not going to think through the way the world works and come after our throats.

So, it's kind of a mixture. There's a lot of good things about it, but there were also, you know, the property class. The people who concentrate wealth don't do things just out of the goodness of their hearts for the most part, but in order to maintain their position of dominance and then extend their power. And it's been kind of that battle all the way through.

Right now, we happen to be in a general period of regression, not just in education. A lot of what's happening is sort of backlash to the 60s; the 60s were a democratizing period. And the society became a lot more civilized and there was a lot of concern about education across the spectrum - liberals, conservatives and bipartisan. It's kind of interesting to read the liberal literature in the 70s, but there was concern about what they called, at the liberal end, "the failures of the institutions responsible for indoctrinating the young." That's the phrase that was used, which expresses the liberal view quite accurately. You got to keep them from our throats. So the indoctrination of the young wasn't working properly. That was actually Samuel Huntington, professor of government at Harvard, kind of a liberal stalwart. And he co-authored a book-length report called The Crisis of Democracy. There was something that had to be done to increase indoctrination, to beat back the democratizing wave. The economy was sharply modified and went through a liberal period, with radical inequality, stagnation, financial institutions, all that stuff. Student debt started to skyrocket, which is quite important. But that's a technique of indoctrination in itself. It's never been studied. Important things usually never get studied; it's just putting together the bits of information about it. One can at least be suspicious that skyrocketing student debt is a device of indoctrination. It's very hard to imagine that there's any economic reason for it. Other countries' education is free, like Mexico's, and that is a poor country.

Finland's, which has the best educational system in the world, by the records at least, is free. Germany's is free. The United States in the 1950s was a much poorer country. But education was basically free: the GI Bill and so on. So there's no real economic reason for high-priced higher education and skyrocketing student debt. There are a lot of factors. And one of them, probably, is just that students are trapped.


The other is what's happening to teachers like you. They're turning into adjuncts, temporary workers who have no rights, you know. I don't have to tell you what it's like, you can tell me.

But the more you can get the graduate students, temporary workers, two-tier payment, the more people you have under control - and all of that's been going on. And now it's institutionalized with No Child Left Behind/Race to the Top; teach to the test - worst possible way of teaching. But it is a disciplinary technique. Schools are designed to teach the test. You don't have to worry about students thinking for themselves, challenging, raising questions. And you see it down to the lowest level of detail. I give a lot of talks in communities and places where people are concerned about education and I've had teachers come up to me and say afterwards, you know, I teach sixth grade. A little girl came up after class and said she was interested in something that came up in class, and wanted to know how to look into it. And I tell her, you can't do it; you got to study for the test. Your future depends on it; my salary depends on it.

And that's happening all over. And it has the obvious technique of dumbing down the population, and also controlling them. And it's bipartisan. The Obama administration is pushing it. Also, an effort to kill the schools - the charter school movement vouchers, all this kind of stuff is nothing but an effort to destroy the public education system. It claims that it gives the parents choices, but that's ridiculous.

For most people, they can't make the choices; there are not any. It's like saying everyone has a choice to become a millionaire. You do, in a way: there's no law against it.


I'm feelin what he has to say about student debt being a form of indoctrination. There really is no economic reason for it to be the way it is today.
 

villain

Superstar
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
4,515
Reputation
563
Daps
12,744
Reppin
berlin

:skip:

Pure greed isn't a valid reason for such high-priced higher education and skyrocketing debt - that's the point.

Economically, there has been no change in the field of higher education that warrants that crazy increases in cost.
 

Kid McNamara

'97 Mike Bibby
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
3,632
Reputation
-625
Daps
5,760
Reppin
Freshman Year
:skip:

Pure greed isn't a valid reason for such high-priced higher education and skyrocketing debt - that's the point.

Yes. It is. Pure greed and profit is a valid reason for almost any human behavior. Since when is it not?

Always looking for a side angle when the real reasons are staring you right in the face.
 

villain

Superstar
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
4,515
Reputation
563
Daps
12,744
Reppin
berlin
Yes. It is. Pure greed and profit is a valid reason for almost any human behavior. Since when is it not?

Always looking for a side angle when the real reasons are staring you right in the face.

You're talking about "valid" in a human rights/moralistic sense. We are talking economics.
 

Broke Wave

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
18,704
Reputation
4,580
Daps
44,591
Reppin
Open Society Foundation
Yes. It is. Pure greed and profit is a valid reason for almost any human behavior. Since when is it not?

Always looking for a side angle when the real reasons are staring you right in the face.

Not true. Ideology takes precedence over greed when it comes to human history. The rising student debt can be seen on a base level as greed, but the schools themselves are not any less or more profitable historically, and they have been getting historical levels of private endowment. If it is greed, who profits? Harvard, one of the most expensive schools, doesn't stand to profit from his 55k a year tuition, it has 21 billion dollars a year in endowment, which is free money. The 55k is to maintain exclusivity and restrict access, therefore even in this interaction greed is not the ultimate motivator.
 

Ian1362

david ruffin in the flesh
Supporter
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
3,357
Reputation
700
Daps
5,891
Reppin
NY
:skip:
Economically, there has been no change in the field of higher education that warrants that crazy increases in cost.


Yes there is:

Tuition costs are high for the same reason housing prices rose over the past decade. Cheap credit artificially drove up the demand for school. As you probably have noticed college graduates are a dime a dozen now. Literally anyone can get a school loan irrespective of their credit standing.

Unlike real-estate however education is not represented by any type of tangible good. It's prices will continue to rise so long as credit is made cheap and available to the masses.

Fundamentally speaking however the cost of education is directly tied to the cost of credit.

Now lets take this a step further. In other industries we had mal-investment and mis allocation of resources. Could the same be said for education? How many degree's are handed out that actually teach students how to produce something. How many engineer's do we produce in this country anymore? According to the job market engineers are in massive shortage, so much that major firms across the country are having to look across seas and literally pay for foreigners to come to work here. It used to be that firms outsourced their labor across seas, now the shortage of expertise is so bad that they are paying for their immigration to the States, visa's and all.

Further explained:

In the advent of the worst financial crisis seen in decades, there is much to be learned. Many economists agree that creating false demand will eventually create a bubble and crush a market much faster than the natural economic cycle. Take for instance the student loan market. Student loans, subsidized and unsubsidized, allow an 18-year-old to finance some or all of the next four years of his or her life, including living expenses. Morally, is it right to allow our children to start their lives immersed in debt?

In 1992, Congress increased the amount of money a student can borrow from the federal loan program with the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The act also enabled students defined as "in need" easier access to funding. Now we see student loans dominating the higher-education industry and accounting for 50% of all financial-aid packages.

According to FinAid.org, the average range of tuition inflation is normally 8% annually, and prices have not fallen or stabilized once since 1977, regardless of economic climate. In 2004, the Census Bureau released a report saying private university and college tuition are "up 93 percent from 1990." This symptom may be attributed to cheap and accessible money, and it is becoming an issue now because tuition is still rising but wages have been flat for a decade.

The Department of Education reports having a $63.7 billion budget in appropriations for 2010. It has also received $96.8 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The department's website states that "department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 14 million post-secondary students." That is roughly 4 million short of every college student in the country. Does this mean that only 22% of students in the United States have adequate means to pay for college? Based on America's economic model, this statistic should theoretically be impossible. This means that over 3/4 of Americans attending higher-education institutions are "in need."

There are benefits to the industry being able to increase prices. Colleges and universities need to be competitive. New revenue means that a college or university can afford better professors and improve infrastructure. It can create new dorms for incoming students and build new facilities to allow better access to labs and campus centers. The overall quality of a school and the educational services it offers will increase.

Loans and grants are not necessarily a bad thing, but when the amount of money flooding the industry drives up the demand to the point of the former becoming a market essential, there is an influx of risk. Similarly, healthcare has also enjoyed the fruits of easy money because of the insurance industry. The added funding for research and development has aided advances in medication and technology. But third-party funding usually drives prices up because consumer decision is weakened in the economic equation. Now healthcare is often unaffordable to the independent purchaser.

In most cases, student aid is an immeasurable liability. The individual's risk at 18-years-old cannot be accurately quantified even with a cosigner. Realistically, no private institution would lend this kind of capital to such a young demographic without credit history. It also should be noted that reports have shown average college students to carry 4 credit cards and an average balance of $3,000 that they cannot pay off in full. This is a small sum compared to the amount they will inherit after a four-year tenure, but it shows that credit is being handed out indiscriminately. A massive amount of speculation is being placed on the payees with no indication of them being able to afford repayment.

A boost in educational funding for financing may come at a price. If the current trend continues, students will increase the amount financed and they will be paying for the majority of their education in loans. As the January 14 edition of the Economist notes, "only about 400,000 more Americans were employed in December 2009 than in December 1999, while the population grew by nearly 30m." With an unemployment rate of 10% (real figures are closer to 17%), matters look only more ominous.

Millions of students will graduate with the same popular majors and compete for fewer jobs because a significant amount of manufacturing and industry has left the United States. The supply of students entering the job market will be endless, and businesses will lower the base pay of new employees because of their abundance.

The other scenario is that businesses will not hire them at all because they are fully staffed, thus creating a bottleneck in the job market. Unemployment, Social Security, and Medicare will all suffer from the supply and demand effects of this type of crisis.

State and city universities will not be able to handle every student but they may remain the most inexpensive way of obtaining a diploma. City University of New York has reported a 77.5% increase in transfer students in the last year. This is a sign of education becoming unaffordable. Without major state funding or tuition increases CUNY's infrastructure will not be able to handle the capacity of incoming students.

It is difficult to come to a reasonable assessment on how to address an impending student-loan crisis. Candidates running on a platform of limiting financial aid or reducing the Department of Education will be writing a political death sentence for themselves. The recent Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 will end subsidies for student aid to private lenders. This will make it easier for students to shop for a loan by going directly to the source but will only address who controls the market and has no effect on the economics of tuition cost.

Payments will have a threshold of 10% of a graduate's disposable income and will be forgiven after 20 years while a public servant will be forgiven after ten. The risk associated with loan obligations are shifted to the taxpayer. Consequently, the act removes obligation and creates a moral hazard with the creation of a virtual backstop. With the combination of this backstop and decreasing wages because of an oversupply of workers, the result can only perpetuate default. This bursting bubble will be massive and will affect other major industries such as housing, auto, and credit.

Because of the ease of obtaining these types of loans and leniency in repayment terms, the postsecondary education industry may possibly raise tuition at a faster rate. There lies no risk for a college or university. As long as prices are met, schools can charge whatever the market is willing to pay. Keeping up with the rising costs will be difficult to do because public funding will have to increase exponentially relative to tuition.

In conclusion, we see that the theory of scholastic financial assistance through government intervention does not perform as advertised. The program will actually only hurt the people it is trying to help.
Parents are no longer able to save for their child's college years because postsecondary education price inflation is exponentially higher than the savings rate. This forces more and more students to go into debt before they earn their first professional dollar. It will eventually be disruptive to the economy and will have a massive impact on other industries. Furthermore, debt forgiveness is a moral hazard that means that the debtor has no real obligation and the taxpayer is now responsible.

Whether the student-loan industry is run by the American government or by subsidized lending institutions, the business model is flawed and will continue to force prices upward regardless of whether it makes economic sense.
 

Ian1362

david ruffin in the flesh
Supporter
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
3,357
Reputation
700
Daps
5,891
Reppin
NY

villain

Superstar
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
4,515
Reputation
563
Daps
12,744
Reppin
berlin
Yes there is:



Further explained:

Here are his sources for anyone interested:
https://mises.org/community/forums/p/14077/299427.aspx
The Education Bubble - B. T. Donleavy - Mises Daily

All that is cool but it doesn't talk about the changes in higher education / some new economic necessity that led to crazy student debt and education costs.

The point Chomsky is making is that there are reasons for the skyrocketing debt for students, but they don't have to do with rising costs for universities. He's saying that there are other forces at work that are preventing cheaper education.

Some of it may have to do with easy access to credit.
 

Kid McNamara

'97 Mike Bibby
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
3,632
Reputation
-625
Daps
5,760
Reppin
Freshman Year
Not true. Ideology takes precedence over greed when it comes to human history. The rising student debt can be seen on a base level as greed, but the schools themselves are not any less or more profitable historically, and they have been getting historical levels of private endowment. If it is greed, who profits? Harvard, one of the most expensive schools, doesn't stand to profit from his 55k a year tuition, it has 21 billion dollars a year in endowment, which is free money. The 55k is to maintain exclusivity and restrict access, therefore even in this interaction greed is not the ultimate motivator.

Restrict access? There are already barriers in place to restrict access to the University and the resources it has to offer. Furthermore, once admitted, the majority of matriculating freshman have their aid need met.

I'm not even sure what your argument has to do with Chomsky's though.

Harvard College Admissions § Applying: Statistics
 

Kid McNamara

'97 Mike Bibby
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
3,632
Reputation
-625
Daps
5,760
Reppin
Freshman Year
I'm feelin what he has to say about student debt being a form of indoctrination. There really is no economic reason for it to be the way it is today.

So, on the one hand. The agricultural classes were pushed into the liberal educational system for purposes of industrial indoctrination. On the other hand, during a time of global industry, great wealth disparity, and widespread corruption, we are being priced out of education in order to keep us under the yoke? Which one is it?

:skip:
 

villain

Superstar
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
4,515
Reputation
563
Daps
12,744
Reppin
berlin
So, on the one hand. The agricultural classes were pushed into the liberal educational system for purposes of industrial indoctrination. On the other hand, during a time of global industry, great wealth disparity, and widespread corruption, we are being priced out of education in order to keep us under the yoke? Which one is it?

:skip:

Being priced out of education is not the indoctrination he's referring to. The indoctrination comes through being bogged down with student loan debt.

When you have serious debt problems you're less likely to think about getting up and organizing and changing the way society is run. You can't afford to think about stuff like that because you have bills to pay.

It should be noted that when he talks about these systems of indoctrination, he's not implying some evil villains are sitting in a secret building mapping out
plans to keep people dumb. These are simply the effects of having a society organized in this way.
 

Broke Wave

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
18,704
Reputation
4,580
Daps
44,591
Reppin
Open Society Foundation
Restrict access? There are already barriers in place to restrict access to the University and the resources it has to offer. Furthermore, once admitted, the majority of matriculating freshman have their aid need met.

I'm not even sure what your argument has to do with Chomsky's though.

Harvard College Admissions § Applying: Statistics

I don't know man, 220 thousand dollars seems to be a restriction to me. Maybe not you, friend. Even if your aid is met, you're still eating that debt, which is clearly a restriction.

next time :childplease:
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,626
Reputation
4,859
Daps
68,504
Not true. Ideology takes precedence over greed when it comes to human history. The rising student debt can be seen on a base level as greed, but the schools themselves are not any less or more profitable historically, and they have been getting historical levels of private endowment. If it is greed, who profits? Harvard, one of the most expensive schools, doesn't stand to profit from his 55k a year tuition, it has 21 billion dollars a year in endowment, which is free money. The 55k is to maintain exclusivity and restrict access, therefore even in this interaction greed is not the ultimate motivator.

Schools like Harvard are the worst sort of example to use. You'd be much better asking why schools less prestigious and that produce poor results cost so much. Using elite schools as an example is always a failing proposition. Further, a school like George Washington U used to be the most expensive school in the country an that price tag did nothing to raise it's profile nationally or its prestige. It charges more than Georgetown, but is not considered on its level.
 

Broke Wave

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
18,704
Reputation
4,580
Daps
44,591
Reppin
Open Society Foundation


Schools like Harvard are the worst sort of example to use. You'd be much better asking why schools less prestigious and that produce poor results cost so much. Using elite schools as an example is always a failing proposition. Further, a school like George Washington U used to be the most expensive school in the country an that price tag did nothing to raise it's profile nationally or its prestige. It charges more than Georgetown, but is not considered on its level.

Ehh your getting into specifics (not my strong suit)

You got my point tho :myman:
 
Top