Left2Right

Comments

Posted by: S. Weasel

If the son of J. Paul Getty starts life with millions and goes to a fabulous school, and you start life in Watts and go to a "school" that is mostly about social control, it's worse than facetious to say, "okay, the two of you now should run the race; ready, set, go!" Yes, it's possible that you'll beat out the wealthy kid.

This is only meaningful if beating the wealthy kid to the pinnacle of ambition is the object of the game.

One of the things the left misunderstands about the middle classes (which leads the two to miscommunicate wildly) is that we (the aforementioned folk in the middle) are more or less where we want to be. Well, people in the middle would like a little more than they have. Everyone would like a little more. But a job you enjoy (most people do, you know), home ownership, spouse, coupla kids, green lawn, time off, comfortable car...this, laddies and gennlemong, is a pretty fulfilling life. If you catch yourself at this moment thinking "how sad," you have lost the plot.

All kids expect to be superstars. Middle class kids think, "but until I am discovered by Hollywood, I'll be a dental hygienist." Or a mechanical engineer or an insurance salesman or a programmer. Stable, happy societies are built out of people like this, who dream medium-sized.

The unhappy dream too small, or too large, for their own capabilities.

Posted by: S. Weasel | Dec 9, 2004 8:09:46 PM

Posted by: jcl

Steven Malanga has what I think is a very interesting article in the recent City Journal.

He writes,
"[I]t typically is personal failure and social dysfunction that create poverty. To stay out of poverty in America, it's necessary to do three simple things, social scientists have found: finish high school, don't have kids until you marry, and wait until you are at least 20 to marry. Do those three things, and the odds against your becoming impoverished are less than one in ten. Nearly 80 percent of everyone who fails to do those three things winds up poor."

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_working_poor.html

This would seem to me to be a pretty good, if not yet ideal (but what is?), floor. Many people have come to America poor and through sacrifice, hard work and long term planning made a better life for themselves and set their progeny up for eventual affluence. I'm not sure the question should be "what should we do to establish this floor?" but "what must one do to advance in American society?" If the answer is fair, even if difficult, I don't see the pressing problem. And I don't think having to work 2 jobs or somesuch is unfair, especially looking abroad and considering the alternatives (note the scramble from the south to come here). The poor must meet society half way so to speak. As for Percy, I say ignore him; happiness does not come from perpetually comparing oneself with others.

Of course, you may challenge the correctness of Mr. Malanga's assertion. But, assuming it is true, I would be interested in knowing what you would consider to be a fair floor if this is not one.

Posted by: jcl | Dec 9, 2004 8:20:42 PM

Posted by: jcl

As for Getty, I mean.

Posted by: jcl | Dec 9, 2004 8:23:54 PM

Posted by: SamChevre

It's worth noting, also, that removing circumstantial barriers (class, race, parents ability to supplement schooling) has increased the importance of inherent barriers to achievement (physical strength, intelligence, ability to focus). These cannot be removed by any process short of a Harrison Bergeron-type world; thus, there will be a significant amount of inequality, even if the only differences in people's opportunities are in their genes.

One interesting idea for increasing equality of opportunity is the idea of a capital grant to everyone on reaching adulthood, which could be used for any self-benefiting purpose (schooling, vocational training, buying tools, starting a small business, etc). A lump sum, sufficient to pay tuition at a state university (but not conditional on a university education) would be a considerable help to many people in laying the foundation for a satisfying life.

Posted by: SamChevre | Dec 9, 2004 8:26:50 PM

Posted by: Don Herzog

S. Weasel: Great point: one thing that makes the image of the race break down is that we're not all aiming for the same things. But still you could insist that equality of opportunity requires that you begin with a fair bundle of goodies, where "goodies" just means the sorts of things that are essential for pursuing a very wide range of life plans.

And think about why you juxtapose "the left" and "the middle classes." No overlap? Really? Me, I'm a huge fan of bourgeois domesticity. I just wish it were available to more people. Though if people have a fair shot at it and choose something else, I have absolutely no complaints.

Posted by: Don Herzog | Dec 9, 2004 8:32:00 PM

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely

(Not again, Bullwinkle! That trick never works!)

Of course, no one really believes in equality of opportunity or an entirely level playing field in general. I doubt, following your Vonnegut example, that any of the academicians forming this blog would suggest that social justice requires that they submit to some form of intelligence lowering process to better enable the less intelligent to compete for academic jobs. But your argument slipped a bit too effortlessly from examples of the development of legal equality to some rough sense of economic and social equality or, absent that, the “decent minimum or floor below which no one may fall.”

Ignoring for the moment why you equate or conflate these two types of equality, my own pre-reflective moral intuitions lead me to agree that in the case of children, society has a moral obligation to ensure that some such floor be maintained, though I suspect (no, I’m certain) my floor would be significantly closer to ground level than yours. As to adults, however, I’m not so sure. Since I value freedom more than security, I’m perfectly willing to allow adults the freedom to fail. (“But would you be willing to let them starve to death or waste away on drugs or fritter their lives away studying philosophy, Mr. Peabody?” “Why, yes, Sherman. I would.”)

That is not to say, however, that I take some uber-Randian position that charity is immoral or that we shouldn’t voluntarily attempt to aid those who through no fault of their own need assistance. But the devil is in the details, and the biggest detail is whether the state, at any level, is the only or best method of providing that assistance. So far, the track record for government assistance has not been promising.

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | Dec 9, 2004 8:37:08 PM

Posted by: Steve

I agree with you completely-we don't owe equality, but we do owe some (hard to define) minimum (minimum opportunity, not minimum reality). I also agree with your critics completely; this analogy (race between a rich kid and a poor kid) only works if one is assuming everybody is in a race against each other. There's absolutely no reason to assume this to be the case (other than to make the analogy rhetorically effective). I hadn't thought about it in terms of "don't race to the top, just plod along in the middle class," but your critics' are right: what if every human being in the country ISN'T in a competition to be Michael Jordan, Oprah, or Bill Gates? If instead, you set up the analogy so that everyone is simply 'racing' to the middle class, or 'racing' to some reasonable level of stability and comfort, then this analogy loses its meaning. I'm a white, upper middle class, well educated guy and I stand about as much chance of being the president of microsoft (or the next Oprah, or the next MJ) as a homie in the hood. Its never really bothered me, though.

Steve

Posted by: Steve | Dec 9, 2004 8:48:04 PM

Posted by: DJW

S. Weasel, I don't see how this is at all responsive to Don Herzog's post. Herzog is suggesting an opportunity floor, and suggesting that empirically we're almost certainly not meeting it. He didn't say the middle class wasn't meeting it. I can't imagine people in the scenario you describe being below any sensible person's notion of the appropriate opportunity floor.

Posted by: DJW | Dec 9, 2004 8:54:15 PM

Posted by: donna

The poor start out with a handicap - being poor. Lacking resources to even survive without a great deal of effort is a pretty intense handicap. Middle and upper classes at least have the advantage of knowing basic needs are taken care of, and can concentrate on getting the kids educated, and even have choices about whether to have kids or not.

I don't think the left and the middle class miscommunicate. I think for the middle class to lack any understanding at all of where the poor are starting from is the miscommunication.

Posted by: donna | Dec 9, 2004 9:11:40 PM

Posted by: Mark Draughn

I've never liked the race analogy because it can be misleading. Wealth is not a race, or at least not a normal one. A race is about more than just a race, it's about winning the prizes at the end. When it comes to personal financial success, there are no prizes at the end. The prize is awarded for every mile you run, not for running the most miles. The very act of accumulating wealth is itself the prize.

(I'm simplifying by talking about wealth. The real goal is happiness for you and your loved ones, but happiness is also about how you live your life and not about who was happiest when it's all over.)

If someone in a real race gets a head start, he has a better chance of winning the prize. This reduces everyone else's chances at the prizes, and that's where the real damage occurs. But in the wealth race, there's no prize. Why should I care if the Getty kid has a head start? I'm paid by the mile, not by my standing at the end. He may get more, but that doesn't mean I get less.

(Unless he's getting more because he's stealing from me. That's a whole different problem.)

Now, if you want to help me, the Harrison Bergeron plan of tying an anchor to the Getty kid's leg does nothing to speed me up. Making him poorer won't make me any wealthier.

So, um, yeah. An opportunity floor is the right idea.

Posted by: Mark Draughn | Dec 9, 2004 9:53:17 PM

Posted by: Dave M

I'm not sure if I'm jumping the gun or not, but I think you are being too blithe in your distinction between equal opportunity and equal outcome. Equal opportunity theoretically entails affording the same opportunity to differently situated people, a detail which quickly blurs the lines between equal opportunity and equal outcome. The clearest example is the treatment of people with physical disabilities. Is it a violation of principles of equal opportunty to establish a dual bus system, one for non-disabled people and one for the disabled? Should the disabled be forced to pay more for the service? Should the government spend more money to ensure that the disabled have the same access to public isntitutions that the non-disabled have? With physical disabilities, the questions are clear. What happens, though, when you broaden the number of privileges and impediments considered? The distinction collapses at some point, and the only way to avoid it is by drawing somewhat arbitrary, but justifiable lines.

Posted by: Dave M | Dec 9, 2004 10:38:13 PM

Posted by: Jeff Licquia

It's not enough to stop handicapping some runners and privileging others. Equality of opportunity seems to depend on some version of equality of starting points.

I'd like to see some more analysis of this, because I don't see this premise as even remotely proven.

Handicapping some group in some way is a positive wrong; people are acting to prevent some people from enjoying some privilege or right due them. Whatever your view of government, it would seem obvious that preventing active malice is the kind of thing (liberal democratic) government does better than any other institution (that I can think of at the moment, anyway).

Providing "equal" starting points, on the other hand, is less about preventing active malice as it is about positive action by government to ensure some equality. This gets into the same kinds of monstrosities as equality of outcomes tends towards, which is why even Mr. Herzog feels a need to water the pure idea down.

Part of this may be because one person's starting point is another person's outcome. Children born in Watts are born to people who could not create a better outcome for themselves, and are thus stuck in Watts. Do we equalize the outcome of the parents for the sake of the children? Or do we take children away from poor parents, just because they are poor, and give those children to rich parents, who can provide them with better starting points? The more I think along this line, the more horrific the ideas get: rich people child-shopping in the slums, almost akin to the slave auctions of the antebellum South.

The question of what to do regarding stopping points is a very difficult one. I like some of the ideas above, like SamChevre's capital grant. Such grants might be equal in amount, but their impact would be greater the farther down the ladder you go. Would a loan be better, I wonder--possibly with easy forgiveness terms for those whose outcomes are poor?

Posted by: Jeff Licquia | Dec 9, 2004 11:05:15 PM

Posted by: Jeff Licquia

Oops. My last post, last paragraph, first sentence: "stopping points" -> "starting points".

Posted by: Jeff Licquia | Dec 9, 2004 11:15:18 PM

Posted by: Simon

Perhaps this is something you will get to in later posts, but I'd be curious to hear more about how we go about defining what level of the floor we should be aiming at . . .

Posted by: Simon | Dec 9, 2004 11:38:39 PM

Posted by: Rob Perelli-Minetti

Equality of starting points can't literally mean identity of starting points, for the same reason that equality of outcomes is repulsive. No one in his right mind should want to homogenize schools, communities, and the like, and anyway it's impossible. So in the usual story line, which I'm mechanically following -- and which you are obviously free to challenge -- the best interpretation of equality of starting points is setting some decent minimum or floor below which no one may fall. There's endless room for disputes in various domains about where that floor is. But I'll 'fess up: it seems to me we're not meeting it.

I think this is helpful, at least in establishing a point of agreement that the conversation is not about equality of result. The reference to the Harrison Bergeron reductio ad absurdum should serve as a shorthand for the entire discussion of equality of result.

What's unclear is what you mean by establishing a floor of starting points. Do you mean to establish a floor as to the available level of opportunity? Or, do you mean to suggest some sort of floor on the results of the educational process as a starting point.

Using schooling in the example seems useful as a starting point as well. Public schools at all levels can be seen as one manifestation of the community's desire to provide a floor of opportunity: even the best of them do not confer the advantages of the better private schools, yet most people accept that disparity. And, of course, public schools vary vastly, ranging from the schools that are basically about social control (as you put it) to the elite suburban public high schools where most students take many honors and AP classes, and perhaps a quarter of the class go to the ivys.

Affirmative action in education, as a philosophy, has generally been about admitting students who would not otherwise be admitted to elite preparatory schools and universities, rather than about a floor of opportunity to compete equally. Given that these places represent scarce resources that others are crowded out of by this process, it's no wonder this sort of approach generates resentment, especially from those who are not given the special opportunity, and could probably not have afforded it even if they had.

Yet, there is another model of an educational floor of opportunity: the community colleges. As they developed in California (at least up through the 1960 Master Plan), they were seen as providing every high school graduate with the opportunity for college work, or vocational training, at a nominal cost (in the 1960s there was no tuition, and a registration fee of something like $5 or $10 a semester, which could be waived for the destitute). These two years colleges offer extensive remedial work for those whose high school preparation was inadequate -- a real second chance for those who came out of high schools more about social control than learning -- and academic classes that were designed to be equivalent to those at the University of California, and which were guaranteed to transfer credit if one met the transfer standards after two years. This is the kind of opportunity flooring that has always made sense to me, and which enjoyed wide popular support from the community. With open enrollment, it provided low cost access to educational opportunity without creating resentment. With remedial work it provided the opportunity to make up academic deficiences and to gain self-respect from achievement at a reasonable pace. And, most importantly, it then provided the opportunity to move up to the elite level in the California system to obtain a "good" degree without stigma. This path was widely used by many in California up through the sixties and probably well-beyond. It worked for the student who needed the remedial classes, and it work for the student who could have been admitted to the University but could not afford it. Indeed, in their own way, all public colleges and universities represent an attempt to provide an opportunity floor which is anywhere from widely to almost universally available. It's rather a remarkable achievement when you think about it.

I think the well-meaning people who pushed for the model that has become affirmative action have often done a disservice to equality of opportunity by emphasizing admission to elite institutions, trying as it were to make the lad from 'social control' high school have the elite opportunity otherwise avaiable only to the J. Paul Getty, Jr.s (to use your example). I remember the arguments at the time, around 1970, how important it was to get the "whole four year experience" without seriously thinking about the very effects that have come to pass in terms of the hostility engendered, the assumption by many that those who have attended elite institutions through affirmative action are unqualified, and the like. Some of us warned against these effects at the time, although admittedly more from the perspective of maintaining academic standards and the value of the university's degrees.

Posted by: Rob Perelli-Minetti | Dec 9, 2004 11:40:49 PM

Posted by: Chris

I think the story of American imagration (pick your group) is a good example of the idea of multigenerational sucess. (I know I am gong to piss someone off with my examples)

The first generation works in manual jobs with no educations and no skills (Migrant farm workers) so the second generation can finsih high school

The second generation gets a job as a mailman so the third generation can go to college

The Third generation gets a job as a computer programmer so the forth generation can go to grad school

The forth generation works as a Doctor, Lawyer, Executive so the fifth generation can go to art school

The fifth generation p*ss*s it all away.

Wealth creation is a multigenerational process.

The John Paul Getty Jr. example is disragarded by many on the right because most of us know lots of sucessful people who made the choice to use the money they earned to give their kid the best possible opportunities and the kids still end up not being sucessful. Sometimes it is hard to tell of parents giving everything to he kids helps them or just screws 'em up for life.

Posted by: Chris | Dec 10, 2004 12:42:50 AM

Posted by: trumpit

I enjoyed the stories and the ideas you present. The idea of life as a race is a bit "overfatigued" to me too though. Maybe, it's a RAT race for many nowadays. But I have no trouble with your well-made points.

Posted by: trumpit | Dec 10, 2004 1:26:38 AM

Posted by: Bruce Allardice

In his first paragraph, Mr. Herzog uses an example of a 1573 quarrel between John Fortescue and Lord Grey to illustrate the point that Fortescue could not have sued Grey for trespassing on Fortescue's land because Grey was an aristocrat. The point may be correct, but the incident used to illustrate the point is inapposite.

The following is from an online biography of Sir John Fortescue:

"Similarly, in the 30 years
after [Sir John Fortescue's] appointment to the wardrobe the only incident involving him directly
which attracts attention is his dispute with his Buckinghamshire neighbour,
Arthur, Lord Grey of Wilton. As keeper of Whaddon chase, Grey claimed the right
of entry into Salden to protect the Queen's deer. When Fortescue took the
dispute to the Privy Council, Grey ambushed him at Temple Bar, beating him from
his horse. The Queen took Fortescue's part: Grey was put in the Fleet and
remained out of favour for several years."

From this it appears that "Lord Grey" [Arthur, Lord Grey of Wilton d. 1593] had a colorable legal right to be on Fortescue's land; that Fortescue, a member of Parliament, was hardly a downtrodden peasant; that Fortescue did in fact have legal recourse, taking the dispute to the Privy Council; and that Grey eventually was sent to prison ("the Fleet") for beating Fortescue up.

The "turd" anectdote is colorful, but it would be intellectually sounder to choose an illustration that better fits the point being made.

Posted by: Bruce Allardice | Dec 10, 2004 2:13:44 AM

Posted by: jonathon martin

Talking about where the floor should be is a somewhat arbitrary factor but I don't think the idea of equality of opportunity in practice is as dangerous a concept as some of the above posters.

To give a real world example of a government that takes a fairly strong view of equality of opportunity, that of Finland, the measures would I would imagine seem unpalatable to US ears. In Finland there are only a handful of private schools, which in any case are subsidised by the government so the fees are negligible. They are Steiner schools and a couple of international schools. They tend to be attended not by the children of the wealthy but by the children of diplomats and people who like Steiner schools. The interesting result is that the level of academic achievement at 15 in Finland is higher than anywhere else in the world and even more importantly, the link between parental wealth and the achievement of children is lower than anywhere else in the world.

Other measures include free university education with stingy but just about liveable living support for five years, though most students work in the Summer.

To my mind this is the key to genuine equality of opportunity and I don't think anyone in Finland would claim they are disadvantaged by their background in terms of life opportunities either directly (simply not having the money) or indirectly (class prejudice and other psychological factors such as fear of debt). What is clear is that it has great benefits, as can be seen by the level of schooling, but also fairly great and to some unpalatable restrictions on the freedom of parents to send their children to expensive schools and universities. And of course none of the universities in Finland are of the quality of the top 20 or 30 in the US.

Like it or not, equality of opportunity comes at a cost. In Finland it has been able to grow organically since not so long ago everyone was pretty poor. Clearly, the costs are too high for the stomachs of even those concerned with genuine equality of opportunity in the US. It seems to be a question of how far they are willing to go. Interestingly, one of the greatest areas of tension in the US is affirmative action, which at least is not necessary in Finland since everyone gets a similar quality of primary education even if the content is different.

Posted by: jonathon martin | Dec 10, 2004 3:59:42 AM

Posted by: S. Weasel

And think about why you juxtapose "the left" and "the middle classes." No overlap? Really?

In my experience, Don, there are people who don't consider themselves middle class, whatever their income. It's not specifically lefties, but people in certain professions: academics, artists and writers, journalists. Scientists. "Middle class" in some circles has become a pejorative meaning "family, boring job, lives in the suburbs, a bit dim." Never mind that the vast majority of us end up somewhere in the middle, one way and another.

It hasn't escaped notice that the Democrats, once the champion of the "workin' man" have tried to switch that message seamlessly to "middle class families." To make it stick, they'll need to understand the middle classes better. When I hear, "tax cuts for wealthy corporations" I think, "woohoo! I'm gettin' a Christmas bonus this year!" We work for the entities they're trying to demonize and, while we have our complaints, our employer having too much money isn't usually one of them.

Posted by: S. Weasel | Dec 10, 2004 6:27:33 AM

Posted by: Dallas

Herzog,

In your supplementary remarks, I hope you will address these points:

1. Equality under the law and equality of opportunity, as you conceive it, are quite different concepts, yet you equate, or at least confuse, the two. You say: "So too for the closely connected ideal of equality of opportunity, which also flatly prohibits forbidding Protestants from becoming lawyers. It isn't fair." Repealing a prohibition against Protestants becoming lawyers isn't an instance of insuring equality of opportunity; it's an instance of insuring equality under the law, of stopping irrational governmental discrimination.

2. If one goes beyond stopping irrational governmental discrimination - if one sets out to insure some basic level of economic or educational equivalence - one should (assuming one is a rationalist) offer a justification for doing that. You have simply glided over this issue, saying in effect that some level of economic/educational equivalence should be pursued because it is self-evidently "fair" - so obviously required that "it's hard to know how even to challenge it." This is fiat logic - "It's fair because I deem it to be fair." Put another way, you are advocating policies based upon a subjective rationale. And, when one does that, one is likely to end up exactly where we are now, in a morass of "endless disputes" where the debate boils down to one faction saying, "We aren't doing enough," another faction saying, "Yes we are," and a third faction saying, "We're doing too much."

3. There's another facet of the topic you haven't addressed. A particular behavior may be morally right without being legally required. Generally, we all agree that benevolence toward the less-privileged is morally right, but agreement on that proposition does not require one to also agree that benevolence should be imposed as a legal duty. If you are intent upon imposing a legal duty, you (as a rationalist) bear the burden of offering a rationale for imposing that duty - a rationale that is something more than "it is right that we do this."

4. Finally, you should also address this problem: your conception of equality of opportunity cannot be imposed without denying equality under the law. If resources are to be mandatorily shifted from one citizen to another, then legal burdens must be imposed upon some that are not imposed upon others. Again, you (as a rationalist) should offer an explanation for abandoning one of your "ideals".

Posted by: Dallas | Dec 10, 2004 6:55:24 AM

Posted by: Bernard

It seems to me that the proper function of the state is to ensure that there are no legally mandated artificial barriers to opportunity (a la the glass ceilings of many societies past and present).

I hope that very few people would consider that disrupting the link between natural talent/personal (or parental) application and opportunity is a good idea. I think worries over left-wing ideology on the latter are a key consideration for the middle-classes.

Posted by: Bernard | Dec 10, 2004 7:01:20 AM

Posted by: Not a Randian, But Not Ignorant Either

"That is not to say, however, that I take some uber-Randian position that charity is immoral or that we shouldn’t voluntarily attempt to aid those who through no fault of their own need assistance."

Of course you never read Ayn Rand or you would know how stupid this argument looks.

But whatever makes you feel superior.

Posted by: Not a Randian, But Not Ignorant Either | Dec 10, 2004 9:07:44 AM

Posted by: The Sad Truth

I am old fashioned, but I find it very disgusting to handicap whole communities (as the "progressives" have done to African-Americans) in order to spite the 0.0001% of John Paul Getty Jrs out there. We have whole communities out there crippled by "progressive" educational systems, which were put in place because "progressives" don't think it is fair Paris Hilton can sit on a beach all day.

Wow, you really got her back by screwing over black people! But whatever makes you feel warm an fuzzy. Pat yourself on the back!

Posted by: The Sad Truth | Dec 10, 2004 9:12:58 AM

Posted by: marie

I would like to add to a comment that Rob had made- "Indeed, in their own way, all public colleges and universities represent an attempt to provide an opportunity floor which is anywhere from widely to almost universally available. It's rather a remarkable achievement when you think about it."

Quite frankly this is a bit off base. Let me start by saying that I equate an 'equal starting point' to be equal access to education. However, the US is pretty far removed from equal access to education. Let me explain this from personal experience...first I come from an upper middle class white small town family. My family was well off and I went to an excellent high school. I took numerous AP classes and had great teachers. I had the drive and want to go to college and so I did- even though there were people form my same background that did not. My boyfriend is a stark contrast to this. He is an immigrant that came here during high school. Due to his parents level of income they live in a poor big city neighborhood. The high school he went to was mediocre at best. However, my bf was serious about education and wanted to go to college. He went to all his classes, studied, did well, and on top of this worked a full time job. He graduated high school at the top of his class and went to the state public university (which is where we meet  ). Because he is a minority (and comes form a poor family and even poorer area) he got a need based scholarship and a Pell grant. The university also had a program for the under privileged incoming freshman- this program consisted of the soon to be freshman to start college several weeks early to help ‘make them ready for college’.

Now this all seems well and good- which it is- but here is the catch (sorry for this post to be so long winded). Even with all this help and personal drive, my bf almost failed out if college!! The reason why- his high school education left him so ill equipped for the rigors of college that not even the extra help the University gave was able to bring him up to the skill level needed in college. This was true for many of the minority students that came in with my bf. It was due to strong family support/expectations and help from me tutoring him that he is now going to be graduating college! Unfortunately, many kids do not have this sort of support. There is something seriously wrong with the system if you have the drive and intelligence, but this still happens. And my bf is not an uncommon phenomena- I know many people who have been in this same situation.

Basically what I am getting at is that an equal starting place begins with education and the US is not up to par on this!!! (side not- because of soaring college costs my bf is going to graduate $30,000 in debt for 4 years!! And this is at a state PUBLIC university where he pays in state tuition with a scholarship and Pell grant!! And in-state tuition here is insanely cheap compared to my home state…Tell me that is not ridiculous!)

Posted by: marie | Dec 10, 2004 9:44:00 AM

Post a comment