Not just money
With all due respect to Eli Evankovich's position as a state representative (R-54) and to his degree and background in business, I must challenge the basic premise of his column “Rethinking student loans” (Aug. 27 and TribLIVE.com) that access to student loans should be governed by expected earnings.
For example, he comments: “If students were able to borrow based only on the value of their degree, wouldn't it cause students to think more closely about their course of study and what it will mean to them after college?” He comments further: “If a history major will, on average, earn less than an engineering or accounting major, I think that it makes perfect sense to give him the protection against ‘over-borrowing' for his education.”
The “value” to which Evankovich refers is “money.” As we know, many students contemplating careers after high school unfortunately do, in fact, base their choices on what they perceive will be the expected “value” of their decisions. I'd suggest, however, that access to post-high-school education should not be rationed based on one's potential ability to accumulate wealth.
Although we clearly need folks trained and skilled in the so-called “hard sciences” (physics, chemistry, engineering, etc.), our existence as a society would soon become dull and greatly diminished if we have fewer graduates from the humanities and social sciences; students in these disciplines deserve equal access to student loans.
The writer holds bachelor's and master's degrees in engineering from the University of Pittsburgh.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.