 | Commento: Survey finds education costs affect students' performance,
not income
By Kiley Kravitz
WASHINGTON — While higher education spending remains
a prominent target of congressional and administration
attention on reducing the nation's deficit, a new survey
shows education spending as a major factor affecting
students' ability to earn a fair wage.
An annual survey of more than 4,200 college students by the
Associated Students of Public and Landed University (ASPLU)
and the College Scorecard, a nonprofit that tracks student
achievement, found that students' college cost was a
significant part of student debt.
While student loan debt is at historic lows and has fallen
in real terms, the data show that students often don't earn
enough to cover the costs associated with college.
The higher education findings mirror the results of two
similar national surveys this year.
A major portion of students' college costs are paid in
installments over time, according to a survey this year by
the Educational Trust, a nonprofit that tracks student
financial aid. Nearly 70 percent of students said they pay
annual, fixed cost installments, while the student loan data
does not include a fixed cost. About 75 percent of students
say interest costs are about the same regardless of when
they enter repayment.
The College Scorecard is the first comprehensive national
survey to test students' financial ability to pay for a good
education, said ASPLU President Richard Kagan.
"Students who can pay the average cost for college can help
us identify what colleges and students don't have the
ability to pay," Kagan said in a statement. "And because of
a higher percentage of students borrowing and paying the
average cost of college, more and more students are earning
more at every stage of college."
APPLAUSE: Congress must spend more
"One in two college students (46 percent) don't meet their
income standards to meet their college loan payment," said
Steve White, president of ASPLU. "That's why it's vital
lawmakers pass comprehensive legislation to increase the
incomes of all Americans. There is only one way forward for
higher education, and that is to increase student debt."
While student debt affects students across income and
education groups, the number of students with such debt in
particular is more reflective of lower-income students.
According to a separate survey by the Educational Trust, 28
percent of low-income students have high default rates on
their college loans. Some of this is because most low-income
students have taken on college loans in the previous four
years, often using borrowed money to finance private school,
community college or summer school.
The College Scorecard has been measuring the financial
well-being of college students since 2012. The survey showed
that about 23 percent of low-income students had a "very
severe" default rat
[url=https://www.shamsbim.com/]카지노[/url]
[url=https://www.uzgitwebtasarim.com/]예스카지노[/url]
Hart blow for crows — Mike Cockerham (@mcockerham)
September 9, 2017
And finally, on September 12, the National Trust issued a
statement, declaring its dismay and calling on the
government to take "robust action", but stressing that the
decision was made "out of a strong understanding of the
impacts such an action would have on crows and their future
health".
"By taking this decision we have been putting our faith in
the process but given it is clear that an overwhelming
majority of stakeholders are strongly opposed to our plans
we feel it is best to move to appeal this decision."
Cynics have dismissed those statements as a desperate
attempt to save money, with Nick Bilton in the Times
arguing: "The Government is attempting to save money with an
out-of-control budget, and has already decided to cancel one
of its key conservation schemes for failing to make
necessary conservation recommendations to Parliament."
For its part, the government insisted that it had consulted
"overwhelmingly" on the issue, and that there was "a serious
chance" that it would go ahead with conservation plans.
A spokesman for the Department for the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs said it was aware of the concerns and "looks
forward to taking a robust approach to this important
conservation issue".
But those opposing the plan argue the changes to the
National Trust Trust Trustee (NTF) agreement are another way
to reduce funding for conservation, as the trust must
approve any changes.
The plan also has the backing of local government and other
supporters of conservation across the UK and is also opposed
by many other conservation organisations including the Royal
Society.
And as for those who have written to the government in
support of it, they were rebuffed, with the NTF website
saying there were "not one shred of evidence" to suggest
they wanted the plan reversed.
The Trust said in a statement on the campaign against the
plan, that the government was "wearing a sombrero" but the
statement added: "The Sustrans project is important to many,
and will help to save birds, which are at risk of extinction
by habitat destruction."
A spokeswoman for Sustrans said: "We are very excited that
Sustrans is leading this important campaign against the
decision not to protect and conserve these incredible birds.
"However, with these measures, this plan has not been taken
forward and this does not change the fact that the trust is
still committed to protecting and preserving birds and will
continue to do so.
"Our Trustees know that these funds will be reallocated to
better fund other important conservation work and our
members are working to ensure that these funds continue to
help keep wild birds alive and healthy." |
