College Debt Got You Down? Well, Maybe You Shouldn’t Have Gone

I just read Students Are Responsible for Student Loan Crisis, which takes an unusual view of the student debt crisis.

The author, Michael Carr, argues that investing in a college education is a business decision that should be made much like other business decisions—with an eye toward return on investment (ROI).

Carr referenced PayScale's college education ROI formula, which is a little sketchy, I think, in that it merely looks at a school’s tuition and then compares it to the average median lifetime earnings of graduates from the school. That sounds like a formula with a decent margin for error, but okay.

After a review of the data, Carr concludes that:

“[In the future] higher rates will make college loans unprofitable for most students…Student loans are not sound investments in all too many cases. If interest rates rise, there will be a crisis as graduates find themselves struggling to pay off a bad investment.”

Of course, Carr isn’t the only one who’s concerned about student loan debt getting out of control. If you’re a parent who isn’t independently wealthy with college-age or at-some-point-to-be-college-age students, I imagine you’re worried. I know I am.

Entrepreneur Mike Rowe, founder of Profoundly Disconnected, has a whole bunch to say on this topic. During a recent interview on Mike Huckabee,  Rowe asserted it was nuts that we’re “lending money we don’t have to kids who can’t pay it back to train them for jobs that no longer exist.” Rowe says that we should put more effort into supporting the skilled trades, and his foundation aims to do just that, by providing scholarships to students who are part way through an accredited trade school or apprenticeship and who need financial assistance. As someone who just recently paid a plumber $250 for an hour of work, I can’t disagree with Rowe’s position.

However, I do have a bone to pick with Carr, who makes it sound as though college is an outrageous luxury and students are deciding willy nilly to go.

Again, I can get on board with Rowe. If the trades interest you, by all means, get thee to the nearest program. We need more skilled trades people, and they surely make a good living.

But if you’re interested in any type of white collar position, a college degree is not a luxury but a necessity, especially for people of color.

And these kids didn’t create the environment. Hiring managers and HR folks did. Nobody should have to spend $120,000 to learn how to be an administrative assistant, but that’s the way this game is being played now.

For example, recently I’ve seen two ads for an HR Manager—Manager, not Director, not VP—with a Master’s degree as a requirement. That foolishness is not the fault of college students.

So, I take issue with Carr’s somewhat cavalier assessment of kids who decide to get a college degree, even while I agree that it behooves students (and their parents) to think seriously about how to defray the cost of education, perhaps with the aggressive pursuit of grants and scholarships and a deliberate strategy, such as going to community college for two years and then transferring to a university. Of course, any parent who can afford to should begin saving for his child’s college education as soon as possible, maybe taking advantage of a Section 529 Savings Plan.

In the meantime, I sit patiently, waiting for the revolution. I have to believe that there’s a tipping point here, that college tuitions can’t keep rising as they have, remaining unchallenged by the masses.

At least, I hope not.

Rutgers AD Julie Hermann—Abuser or “Tough Manager?”

In the news again for all the wrong reasons, Rutgers University is getting some unfavorable press for its decision to hire Athletic Director Julie Hermann, despite reports that Hermann has a history of abusing athletes.

According to fifteen members of the University of Tennessee women's volleyball team, when Hermann was their coach in the late 90s, her abuse and insults had gotten so bad they decided to join forces and confront Hermann with a letter documenting their mistreatment and their conclusion that the situation was “irreconcilable.” After being confronted, Hermann reportedly told the players "I choose not to coach you guys" and quit.

Hermann’s present-day response to these allegations?

"I was never notified of the reported letter outlining the concerns of some former athletes. However, I am truly sorry that some were disappointed during my tenure as coach… for sure, I was an intense coach, but there is a vast difference between high intensity and abusive behavior."

That’s right, she went there. The old “I’m not abusive, I’m just a tough manager,” defense.

But wait. Before you say I’m being too quick to form an opinion, also note that Hermann was at the center of a $150,000 settlement won by a former assistant coach who claimed Hermann repeatedly made remarks to discourage her from getting pregnant. Some of these remarks were captured on videotape at the assistant coach’s wedding, when Hermann, looking into the camera, said:

"I hope it's good tonight. Because I know you've been waiting for a while, but I hope it's not too good, because I don't want you to come back February with any surprises, you know, the office and all, and it would be hard to have a baby in there."

And I don’t care if Hermann was joking. You don’t say this stupid stuff at a colleague’s wedding unless you’ve known each other since kindergarten. And even then, you’d better proceed with caution.

But what really gets me is that when questioned about the settlement and the tape Hermann said, "Was I at her wedding? They eloped? I don't even remember that, honestly.”

What the?

How does someone completely forget going to someone else’s wedding? What is Hermann, some damn dignitary, flittering about here and there, always in demand? Barely knowing where she is one minute to the next? Give me a freakin’ break, please. I don’t doubt Hermann is busy, but come on.

Not to mention, there was a settlement. How many settlements was Hermann involved in for crying out loud? Because if I’m Hermann, and my employer says, “We’re going to have to pay $150,000 because of those videotaped wedding remarks you made,” I’m going to darn sure remember you, your wedding, that videotape, and every other flippin' detail of that mess until damn near forever.

So, while I can believe that people change and that there are at least two sides to every story, something smells fishy here. Either Hermann is one of the most dense people on the planet, one of the most self-centered people on the planet, or  an outright liar. Of course, she could be all of these.

And all I can think about is the former students who say Hermann’s treatment led to depression and trauma that still hasn’t completely dissipated, even after sixteen years, and I'm sympathetic. It has to be hard to feel what they feel and listen to Hermann blithely deny responsibility while Rutgers’ administration gushes about her record and declares how much they look forward to her start date.

This is quite the story, and I don’t think it’s going away, so I’m hopeful that the truth will out. One way or another.

In the meantime, at least one member of the search committee who selected Hermann is blaming the recruiter for not fully vetting Hermann’s background, and maybe this is, in fact, the beginning of the end for Hermann, despite the good face Rutgers is putting on things at the moment. We’ll see.

And the Court Has Spoken ... Again

Sometimes for fun I like to read court opinions of employment law cases, because the darndest things happen in the workplace, and truth truly is stranger than fiction. Even though I’m not a lawyer and don’t understand all the finer points presented in these documents, I can get the gist, and that’s good enough for purposes of my entertainment.

Today I read the court’s opinion of Connelly v. Steel Valley School District.

The plaintiff, Patrick Connelly, a Pennsylvania teacher, filed a complaint against his employer, the Steel Valley School District, arguing that the district’s policy of determining new-hire compensation interfered with his right to travel interstate and is a violation of the Constitution.

What, you say?

Well, Steel Valley's new-hire salary policy credited teachers with in-state experience more generously than teachers with out-of-state experience. In 2006, when Connelly was hired, he had been teaching for nine years—in Maryland. So Steel Valley gave him credit for only one year.

As each year passed, one can only assume that Connelly got madder and madder thinking about his truncated wages, because in 2011 he filed suit, claiming that his employer’s policy had set him back $22,000.

The case was initially dismissed, with the court stating that the Fourteenth Amendment didn’t apply “because the classification alleged is based on location of teaching experience, not residency.”

Connelly appealed, hence the opinion I read today.

While evaluating the appeal, the court looked at “whether Steel Valley's experience-based classification penalized Connelly's fundamental right to be treated like other Pennsylvania citizens.”

It concluded that:

Thus, Connelly is being treated no differently than lifelong residents of Pennsylvania. He does not allege that residents of Pennsylvania who taught out of state for nine years prior to working at Steel Valley are given more credit than was he for their comparable out-of-state teaching experience. Nor does Connelly sufficiently rebut Steel Valley's argument that a teacher who resides in Pennsylvania but teaches in a neighboring state would be subject to the same classification as Connelly, should that teacher later decide to seek employment with Steel Valley.

The court also looked at whether there were rational reasons for Steel Valley’s policy and concluded that there were.

It is reasonable to assume that teachers who have more experience working within Pennsylvania schools have greater familiarity with these regulations and the goals they are expected to accomplish. Beyond familiarity with the regulations, it is also reasonable to assume that teachers with more experience working within the system would have a better grasp on what methods are most successful in achieving the goals the DOE has established. Therefore, a school district may rationally place a premium on teachers who have more experience working within the Pennsylvania school system in order to achieve the legitimate goal of an efficient and effective public education system.

So, as you can guess, this case was dismissed again.

If you’re weird like I am and want to read the entire opinion, you can do so here.

You have to give Connelly’s lawyers points for creative thinking. This is a hell of an argument. (At least this non-lawyer thinks it was pretty clever.) And, I feel kind of bad for Connelly. Teachers don’t make a ton of money, and they put up with a lot of junk, so I can sort of understand his (again presumed) irritation at making less money than another teacher with the same years of experience. Although the court upheld Steel Valley’s view that not all experience is created equal, Connelly clearly disagreed.

I’d love to know what hasn’t been written about this case. Did Connelly know about the policy when he accepted the position? Was he still working at the school when he filed his complaint? (Awkward.) Is he still working there? Is he relieved this case is finally over? Is he freaked out thinking he’ll never get another teaching job?

Forgetting about what the court decided for a moment, what do you think? Is Steel Valley’s policy fair? Is this suit further evidence that people will sue about anything? Or do you admire Connelly for standing up for himself?

They Don’t Call It Higher Education For Nothing

Yesterday I received a letter that started “Dear Families,” which informed me that college tuition for Adam, a sophomore, would be rising another 3.7% for the 2013-2014 school year, bringing total costs to $57,900.

Perhaps it’s because I’ve just started my freelance career and am feeling a little insecure about the future, but I looked at that number as though I’d never seen anything like it before, and a whole mishmash of emotions came flooding in. Incredulity, outrage, anger, resignation, helplessness, hopelessness, and did I mention anger?

(Did you know that, according to Bloomberg, tuition costs have risen 1,102 percent in the last thirty years? I have one word for this statistic—obscene.)

A few hours later, I made the huge mistake of reading a series of first-person accounts of unemployment at Gawker, and between my letter and those accounts I just about lost my mind for a minute.

Maybe some of those accounts have been exaggerated for dramatic effect or maybe some of the writers have made really bad financial and other life choices. Even so, I think it’s safe to say that it’s really tough out here. Of course, what caught my attention the most was the number of young people with college degrees who say they just can’t get decent jobs.

I have good reason to believe what I’ve read. A year or so ago, when I was searching for an HR Assistant, I received many resumes from college grads who were currently working as low-level sales assistants in the retail industry or as wait staff in the restaurant industry. They simply could not find decent-paying jobs with benefits in their chosen fields. And without bragging, let me tell you that as a hiring manager I’m an exception. I’ll hire someone with the right traits but not a whole lot of experience in a minute because I’m confident of my teaching skills. Not every manager will do that. Many want entry-level applicants to have all kinds of experience, and it’s a shame and kind of ridiculous in my view. One job posting I saw last year for a “greeter” at a local theater wanted someone with two years of customer service experience. Give me a freakin’ break, please.

So, I think about Adam’s tuition, and I get a little frightened. Not because we can’t afford it. We can’t, but that’s nothing new. Adam has a scholarship and covers the rest in loans. But I still get a little frightened, mostly about a world in which those in control seem to have no compunction about taking advantage of those who aren’t. You say that’s always been the way of the world? I know, but it seems to be getting worse.

For example, one of the reasons I’m not looking for a full-time job in human resources, despite my background and skills, is that the salaries for generalists at smaller to mid-size companies are straight out of 2004. In fact, I’ve had managers quote current salaries lower than what I was making in 2004. I’m not kidding. How can this be? There’s a bunch of competition, that’s how. And since many managers aren’t necessarily looking for anyone great, just good enough (especially in HR, but that’s another story), they can pay what they pay and have plenty of takers.

So, I worry. The rising costs of higher education. Over-the-top managerial expectations. Stagnant wages. Loads of competition. Employers who don’t want to invest in training. None of this is good for job seekers. 

And in the meantime, I’m trying to teach Adam how to hustle a dollar now, because the time to get started is now. But I’m his mother, so … he doesn’t listen all that well. But, I’m going to keep trying.

Because three years from now, I don’t want to be reading his damn story on Gawker.

WHYY Talks School Yard Bullying

Today WHYY 90.9 FM Voices in the Family presented “The Minefield of Bullying.”

Voices in the Family is hosted by Dan Gottlieb, and today’s guests were Emily Bazelon, author of Sticks and Stones: Defeating the Culture of Bullying and Rediscovering the Power of Character and Empathy, and Dr. Charles Williams, III, a professor at Drexel University.

I’ve written quite a bit about workplace bullying, so it was interesting to hear experts speak about bullying among children and to take note of the various similarities.

But before we get to those, one big difference is that many states, including Pennsylvania, have anti-bullying laws that require schools to take action to create prevention, intervention, and education programs about bullying as well as ensure that there are disciplinary measures in place to hold school bullies accountable. For these I am grateful.

But, unfortunately, workplace bullying is legal, so long as the target is not being harassed because of his or her membership in a protected class. One day I’d like to see that change.

Williams made the point that many adults still don’t understand the harmful effects of bullying and consider it a rite of passage. And, when parents are concerned and do intervene, many children report that the situation gets worse.

Unless your mom’s name is Gwendolyn Johnson, that is.

When I was in the third or fourth grade and being bullied by a group of girls at school, I told my mom. Not right away, but eventually.

Well, the next chance she got she marched right up to that school to deal with the problem. But she didn’t bother speaking with the administrators. Oh no. Instead she went directly to the playground to have a little chat with the offenders, after I’d pointed them out.

I don’t know what she said to them, but I do know they left me alone after that. Yeah, they spent another five minutes teasing me about having my “Mommy” fight my battles, but that’s about it. Of course, this was back in the day when kids were still scared of adults.

Now lest you think this is a terrible story and that no adult should ever approach a child in this manner, let me tell you another story.

When one of my sons was about eight or nine, I learned that he was being bullied at school. So I did the responsible thing and made an appointment with the teacher. The teacher told me that she knew this kid was a problem—she’d gotten multiple complaints—but her hands were tied. She said she’d even complained to the Principal but with no results, although she encouraged me to take a stab at it. Outraged, and thinking that I would probably be wasting my time, I began walking to the Principal’s office. Just then the recess bell rang. And what do you think I did? I did just as my mother had twenty years earlier, that’s what.

A caller into Voices in the Family relayed her story of being bullied years earlier and how it still affects her as an adult. She said that she’d reported the bullying, but no adult had done anything. As a result, her sense of self had been significantly compromised. She told Gottlieb that because no one had stood up for her, she began to believe that she wasn’t worth standing up for. So go ahead and call me an irresponsible adult, I don’t care. I wanted my son to know that he mattered, just like my mother had done for me years earlier.

Bazelon, herself a target of bullies as a child, said that now she “doesn’t take others’ good will for granted,” which I think is yet another pretty powerful testimony about the damaging effects of this phenomenon.

One thing I was pleased to hear both Bazelon and Williams state is that some bullies strategically use aggression as a manipulation technique. And while it may seem odd to hear me say that this pleased me, understand that I find it frustrating that we sometimes give bullies a pass because of the theory that “hurt people, hurt others.” That’s true, and some bullies are “crying out for help,” as Bazelon put it. But others aren’t, and they don’t need our empathy, which they’ll use to manipulate us further. Instead they need discipline and boundaries.

Just like in the workplace, school yard bullies are supported by everyone else’s need to be accepted. To paraphrase Williams, we are social beings, and nothing is more painful for social beings than to be ostracized from the group. This facet of human nature keeps those who witness the bullying, and believe it is wrong, from speaking out. It’s true when we’re ten years old, and it’s true when we’re forty years old, a fact I personally find sad as shit, but what are you gonna do?

Bazelon says that we must balance protecting our kids with their need to learn how to  manage conflict, and I completely agree. She’s hopeful that we can teach our kids how not to bully as well as effective ways to intervene when they witness bullying.

I hope she’s right.

The New Jim Crow

Last night I watched a televised lecture given by Michelle Alexander at the University of Tennessee. Alexander is the author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.

Alexander is an accomplished civil rights attorney and advocate on a mission to radically change the way we think about the criminal justice system. Her website states, “Today an extraordinary percentage of the African American community is warehoused in prisons or trapped in a parallel social universe, denied basic civil and human rights—including the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, and the right to be free of legal discrimination in employment, housing, access to education and public benefits.” Alexander posits that the “war on drugs” has disproportionately and unjustly affected young men of color and that the criminal justice system “functions more like a caste system than a system of crime prevention or control.”

When Alexander speaks about a system that has marginalized some as not worthy of basic human consideration I have to say, it sounds good. It sounds real good. And when I read that one in every fifteen African American men versus one in every one-hundred-and-six white men is incarcerated, I’m open to being persuaded that something systemic is amiss.

But then Alexander said, “We’re all criminals,” as evidence of why the system is unfair, and I’m sorry, but she lost me right there.

She lost at least one member of the audience, too, a young black man who said he’d be remiss if he didn’t discuss his “cognitive dissonance” surrounding this topic, which he said caused “a lot of internal conflict” while listening to Alexander. What this young man wanted to know is—where does personal accountability fit within this movement? He continued  “… I have a lot of family members and friends who know better and continue to not do better.” And I realized this was my problem, too (not the family member part, per se), but the whole idea that somebody other than the individual engaging in the criminal activity is responsible for the result. So I thought, “Great question! Maybe Alexander can win me back with her response,” because you see, I really wanted to be won over, but she’d lost me, and I feared I wasn’t coming back.

And I was more or less correct about that.

Alexander thanked the audience member for his question and responded by saying—

“You know, I think personal accountability plays a role in it for all of us …We all have to take responsibility for the choices that we make in our lives. But we also have to take … responsibility for the choices that we make collectively. And … it seems to me that we have been willing to heap an enormous amount of shame and blame on the poorest, the most vulnerable in our society and accept no responsibility collectively, for having set people up to fail and then keeping them trapped. So, yes, yes, of course everyone has got to take responsibility for their own actions … there is absolutely a role for personal accountability in the conversation. But I think we’ve got to expand the conversation beyond personal accountability, and ask the question, ‘Okay, so you’ve made a mistake. Now what?’”

Well, that’s a fine question to ask, but I can’t help feeling that she pulled a fast one with the response. Personal accountability is important, but it’s not important? Heaping shame and blame on the most vulnerable … what? The criminals are the victims, and the rest of us are their oppressors? What the heck? Okay, maybe there is a segment of the prison population that we’ve inhumanely tossed aside, people who could be rehabilitated or should never have been imprisoned in the first place, but you can’t convince me of that with this argument.

And then it got worse, when she offered Barack Obama as an example of what’s wrong, since he smoked weed and admitted to “experimenting” with cocaine and here he is President because he was raised by his white relatives in Hawaii while someone else is rotting in jail for a relatively minor first-time drug offense … and I don’t know, it just sounded like Alexander is a big old softie, and a little irrational. Are we supposed to believe that the prison system is overcrowded with recreational marijuana users? But Alexander is so well-spoken and so learned, and the NAACP awarded her book an image award, so clearly it’s me, and I’m just ill-informed and mean.

Listen, I’m no stranger to racism or bias, and there’s no reason for me to think that these bugaboos—which infect every other facet of society, as far as I can tell—don’t affect the criminal justice system. But, something in Alexander’s message didn’t translate for me. Sure, let’s examine the system. Sure, let’s demonstrate compassion and devise real ways to help people walk upright again after they stumble. But, goodness, Alexander makes it sound like nobody in jail actually deserves to be there, because “we’re all criminals,” and even President Obama smoked weed. And, sorry, but I’m not buying it.