Of all the current Supreme Court Justices, Clarence Thomas is probably the one whose legal reasoning is most under-appreciated. Thomas often expresses a keen understanding not only of what the law is but what it is for.
A prime example is provided by Quin Hillyer in his article explaining Thomas’ dissent in the recent ruling that decided a California law banning the sale or rental of “violent video games” directly to minors without parental involvement was unconstitutional. Thomas makes the argument, based on precedent, originalism, and natural law, that parents have the right to educate and socialize their children:
[W]hat is remarkable is the power and eloquence of Justice Thomas’ dissent – and the consistency of his assertions to this effect for a full quarter-century. His central thesis is that neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of law supersedes the fundamental right of parents or legal guardians to protect their children, nor supersedes a government’s interest in protecting the parents’ ability to do so.
“The practices and beliefs of the founding generation,” he wrote, and then demonstrated at great length, “establish that the ‘freedom of speech,’ as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents or guardians.” This is consistent with his assertions in several cases beginning with Troxel v. Granville in 2000 that “parents have a fundamental constitutional right to rear their children, including the right to determine who shall educate and socialize them.”
Apart from the details of the video-game case, which may or may not involve threats to that fundamental right, it should be inarguable that such a right does adhere to parents (or legal guardians), and that protection of that right is essential to this nation’s ordered liberty. This is key: Rights apply not directly to children, but to them only through their parents. A law which prohibits parental authority (except in cases of abuse) violates this understanding (which predates and underlies the Constitution); while a law that aids parents in asserting such authority, without imposing the state’s own judgment, ordinarily is consonant with the Constitution.
As Thomas noted in his dissent in Brown, all the way back to and even before the founding, “the law imposed age limits on all manner of activities that required judgment and reason.” It still does so today, so that courts have upheld even such dubious strictures as a drinking age (21) that is above the otherwise legal age of majority (18).
June 30th, 2011 | 1:13 pm
Thomas makes an important argument. If the court had construed playing a video game as an activity with potentially serious consequences–something more like smoking or drinking or driving than reading–clearly that law would have stood. Since the case focused instead on the question of content of the games I don’t think his argument works. Unlike smoking etc. free speech is a directly protected right, so that analogy breaks down. Aside from pornography, is there any other product which by law we don’t allow children to buy based on its content?
June 30th, 2011 | 1:19 pm
Tristian Unlike smoking etc. free speech is a directly protected right, so that analogy breaks down.
But if Thomas is correct, children do not have inherent constitutional free speech rights. As Quin points out, rights apply not directly to children, but to them only through their parents.
Aside from pornography, is there any other product which by law we don’t allow children to buy based on its content?
We don’t sell them tickets to movies that have been rated R because of the film’s content.
June 30th, 2011 | 1:29 pm
The greatest propounder of Lincoln’s thought regarding natural right–Harry Jaffa–has argued that Justice Thomas is the lone defender of the Jeffersonian-Lincoln understanding of natural right on the Supreme Court.
June 30th, 2011 | 1:32 pm
I haven’t read the majority opinion, but I would guess the law was upheld to protect the rights of the game makers, not children. If a state passed a law saying books with Muslim content couldn’t be sold to children it wouldn’t fly. But this isn’t to say children have a constitutional right to choose their own faith.
I thought about the film age restrictions, but that’s not a matter of law. The theaters enforce the ratings restrictions voluntarily.
June 30th, 2011 | 2:36 pm
Children certainly have some natural rights apart from parents. Parents do not have a right to physically abuse their children. We object to abortion precisely because the right to life is not subject to the approval of parents.
Justice Thomas is correct that the speech rights of children are subject to the authority of their parents. But, though that was common sense when the Constitution was written, it is not common sense today. Many Americans would object to it. Nor is the typical modern understanding of “minor” versus “adult” equal to the perceptions of the founding generation which Thomas cites.
Without that common understanding, legal rights and exceptions for minors must be explicitly defined in law. The Constitution does make references to age at many points (ex: one must be at least 35-years-old to be elected President), but it does not define an age at which an American citizen becomes an adult for general legal purposes.
As such, the argument put forth by Thomas is weak.
Also, if adults have the authority to filter many rights of their children, do they also have the natural authority to determine the age at which their children are to be considered adults? Must a parent ween a child to the full age of 17 or 18? Or can a child be kicked out of the house and be made a functional adult at the age of 16? A mere two generations ago, 16-year-old “adults” were common in America, correct?
June 30th, 2011 | 2:45 pm
Thomas is wonderful. Hands down the best Justice there is, to this non-lawyer at least. His decisions on things like this case and religious free-exercise cases are eminently readable by a layman and are completely immersed in common-sense (unlike Scalia, who sometimes is so impressed by his own brilliance that he goes astray into nonsense).
June 30th, 2011 | 2:49 pm
The problem here is that it’s not a parent who doesn’t want their kid to buy Grand Theft Auto, its the state. Thomas’s dissent would be relevant in an imaginary world where the issue in question was a child who wanted to buy a violent game, a store that wanted to sell it and a lawsuit against a parent who was saying ‘no’.
This, though, was not the case. Perhaps a law that simply said when selling to minors, stores had to abide by whatever parents asserted would have worked better. But here you have the state trampling free speech not in favor of parental rights but in favor of what they think a parent might want for their child.
If the court had construed playing a video game as an activity with potentially serious consequences–something more like smoking or drinking or driving than reading–clearly that law would have stood.
Doesn’t work. The law is based on content, not substance of an activity. In other words, you can ban writing paper made out of asbestous on the grounds that its dangerous. If your law, though, says that asbestous made paper with ‘liberal ideas’ or ‘violent stories’ or whatnot written on it is regulated, then you’re dealing with free speech not outlawing an ‘activity’ or dangerous product.
Joe
We don’t sell them tickets to movies that have been rated R because of the film’s content.
This is enforced not in law but by theater owners. If it was enforced in law we’d have a very messy question of films being regulated not even by the gov’t but by a private, industry founded, unelected entity (the MPAA) whose choices have been the subject of much criticism.
June 30th, 2011 | 2:54 pm
I don’t think anyone doubts that the speech rights of children are trumped by parental rights–no kid is going to be able to sue his parents in order to watch ‘South Park’. The issue is whether the right of businesses to sell a product to children can be limited on the basis of the content of the product.
June 30th, 2011 | 3:23 pm
The problem with Justice Scalia’s argument is that it does not explain why graphic sexual content (pornography) may be regulated according to age while violent content may not be regulated.
To maintain that distinction would be particularly tricky in light of the current crop of video games. One game, Mafia II, contains vintage centerfolds from Playboy Magazine and even enables the player to zoom in on those pictures. Thus, content which has long been classified as pornography may currently be legally sold to minors merely because of the medium through which it is provided (a video game).
Then again, those centerfolds do not reveal the women’s vaginas. That alone is the standard by which naked women and fully nude sex scenes are available on TV and in theaters without the legal need of an age verification system. As Boontown points out, ratings boards do not act with the force of law, but rather require the voluntary participation of publishers and distributors.
June 30th, 2011 | 4:42 pm
The problem with Justice Scalia’s argument is that it does not explain why graphic sexual content (pornography) may be regulated according to age while violent content may not be regulated.
Aaron Miller,
Scalia does indeed explain why pornography may be regulated.
Thus, content which has long been classified as pornography may currently be legally sold to minors merely because of the medium through which it is provided (a video game).
The Supreme Court decision does not mean pornographic video games are now untouchable on First Amendment grounds. It means video games are covered by the First Amendment in the same way that movies, books, and other media are. Restrictions can still be placed on video games for pornographic content, just not for violent content.
June 30th, 2011 | 4:44 pm
Joe –
You are aware that the MPAA ratings system is an entirely private-sector arrangement with no force of law, right?
There’s an analogous entity for videogames: http://www.esrb.org/
June 30th, 2011 | 4:49 pm
I don’t think anyone doubts that the speech rights of children are trumped by parental rights . . . .
Tristian,
I think it would be difficult to argue that a child had no free speech rights at all except the rights that parents grant, and the older the child, the more rights they would have.
———–
Age of Majority in Certain States
Alabama 19
Arkansas 18 or graduation from high school, whichever is later
Delaware 19
Mississippi 21
Nebraska 19
————
Would you seriously maintain that a 20-year-old college student in Mississippi could be prevented by the college administration from writing an article endorsing a political candidate unless he had his parents’ permission? Children have a right to education, including, in some cases, information parents may not want them to know.
June 30th, 2011 | 5:29 pm
I don’t think any court would treat a 20 year old college student as a child in the context of a college education. But there’s a bigger issue when it comes to education, which is that state also has a claim. The state has a recognized interest in the education of children that can override parental authority. Consequently, parents cannot presume complete control over their children’s education. See Mozert v Hawkins County, for example.
June 30th, 2011 | 6:07 pm
David — your argument there is that parental rights become limited by the time a person is 20, not that speech rights aren’t trumped by parental rights. I’m not sure what “age of majority” means in this context, but it’s not voting age or the age of being able to form a contract. Parental rights definitely are limited by that time, so the issue isn’t that parental rights don’t trump speech rights, it’s that no such parental right exists over a 20 year old anyway.
June 30th, 2011 | 6:19 pm
Thomas often expresses a keen understanding not only of what the law is but what it is for.
Quoted for truth.
I don’t always agree with Thomas’ conclusions, but reading his opinions creates the distinct impression that he’s the only one of the nine who is asking the right questions.
June 30th, 2011 | 6:24 pm
“But if Thomas is correct, children do not have inherent constitutional free speech rights. As Quin points out, rights apply not directly to children, but to them only through their parents.”
As an unintended consequence, you have presented an argument for abortion – children do not have rights.
June 30th, 2011 | 7:05 pm
“The state has a recognized interest in the education of children that can override parental authority.”
Not legitimately, it cannot. There’s a reason why home schooling has exploded in the past few decades…
“As an unintended consequence, you have presented an argument for abortion – children do not have rights.”
So you think parents (or anyone, by your statement as written) can kill a five year old?
June 30th, 2011 | 8:21 pm
Brian,
Tristian said: “The state has a recognized interest in the education of children that can override parental authority.”
You said: “Not legitimately, it cannot. There’s a reason why home schooling has exploded in the past few decades…”
Tristian is correct. Letshomeschool.com says:
Here are requirements for Vermont, for instance:
In short, each state determines what its homeschoolers teach their children, at least in broad outline.
June 30th, 2011 | 8:56 pm
“[Do I] think [that] parents (or anyone, by your statement as written) can kill a five year old?”
No. Unlike children (persons who have been born) the state does not have a recognized interest in the welfare of embryos/fetus that overrides parental authority. If the state did have such power, then it could regulate mothers (the diet, environment, behavior, etc) as easily as hospitals, as was argued in Roe v. Wade
“The Roe majority ruling of 1973 holds that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting potential human life, but that this does not become a ‘compelling’ state interest — overriding the woman’s Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy, and her subsequent right to terminate her pregnancy — until the point of viability, then assessed at 24 weeks.”
yttp://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/fetus_rights.htm
So if the mother/parents hold the rights of the fetus, then of course they can legally terminate a non-viable pregnancy. However, if the fetus has rights independent of the mother/parents, then the state may intercede the fetus’s behalf against the parent’s wishes.
The determination, no matter the outcome, will have negative consequences.
June 30th, 2011 | 9:15 pm
As a general rule, a minor doesn’t have legal capacity to enter into a contract and shouldn’t be buying anything at all.
I think a law that would have made it illegal to sell any kind of video game to a minor might have stood up because it would be content-neutral (which is important in First Amendment cases.)
If that wouldn’t work, then a law that made it illegal to sell anything at all to a minor would almost certainly stand up. Any effect on free speech would be merely incidental to the broader purpose of regulating commerce with minors.
June 30th, 2011 | 10:39 pm
Tristain,
I’ll tell you what. You do NOT have the right to say whatever you want to my grandchildren and neither do game makers. Freedom of speech, indeed. I cannot believe we are even arguing this. We are so close to the precipice, so close.
“But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
June 30th, 2011 | 10:48 pm
David: From a source that actually has moral authority:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a4.htm
“[2223] Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children…[2229] As those first responsible for the education of their children, parents have the right to choose a school for them which corresponds to their own convictions. This right is fundamental. As far as possible parents have the duty of choosing schools that will best help them in their task as Christian educators. Public authorities have the duty of guaranteeing this parental right and of ensuring the concrete conditions for its exercise.”
June 30th, 2011 | 10:52 pm
“As a general rule, a minor doesn’t have legal capacity to enter into a contract and shouldn’t be buying anything at all.”
Yet somehow, our society allows 17-year-olds to sign up for tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt, indenturing themselves for life before they’ve even reached adulthood. And as of a year ago or so, thanks to compassionate liberals, the possessor of this odious, predatory debt is only allowed to be the federal government, who while accepting the signature of minors is simultaneously telling them they’ll be miserable failures if they don’t. Despicable.
June 30th, 2011 | 11:40 pm
Mark, don’t worry about me. The Supreme Court is saying this, and they’re kind of more important. Keep in mind though that nothing in this opinion takes away from the right of parents to forbid their children from buying, owning or playing these games. Or talking to me.
Brian, I think children have some rights, and the right to an adequate education is one of them. Hence there needs to be a guarantee that parents will discharge their duties in this regard. This is compatible with the claim that parents do have the ultimate right and responsibility to see to their children’s education, just as they have those rights and responsibilities to care for their children in general.
Beyond that though the state has an interest in the education of citizens. Democracy cannot flourish if people are too poorly educated.
July 1st, 2011 | 8:26 am
“Yet somehow, our society allows 17-year-olds to sign up for tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt, indenturing themselves for life before they’ve even reached adulthood.”
Brian, are you sure about this? First, I dispute the “tens of thousands” claim — I don’t believe there’s any loan program out there that grants over $10,000 to a freshman in one year. Certainly the government loan programs don’t issue that much — what private lenders might do, I don’t know.
But more pertinently, I don’t have firsthand experience since my daughter was past 18 (and in fact entering her second year) before she needed to apply for any loans, but don’t 17 year olds need parental permission or at least a cosigner?
July 1st, 2011 | 9:43 am
pentamom: Hmm. I can’t recall whether my parents had to cosign as a freshman back in the day, but I’m not sure that makes it any better if they did–it was still MY obligation to pay the debt, not theirs.
And even if the “tens of thousands” is divided over four years, once someone’s taken out $10K for one year they’ve usually committed themselves (not in the legal, contractual sense, but in the “that’s my plan” sense) to doing so for four. And it’s not like the average 20 year old knows anything about what it really means to committing themselves to pay a couple hundred bucks a month for 10-20 years. How can they?
July 1st, 2011 | 11:20 am
Andy
If that wouldn’t work, then a law that made it illegal to sell anything at all to a minor would almost certainly stand up. Any effect on free speech would be merely incidental to the broader purpose of regulating commerce with minors.
That might indeed be Constitutional, but it would be absurd. Technically you couldn’t give your kid a quarter to get a gumball from a machine! Vending machines would need biometric sensors to ensure only those over 18 could partake!
On second thought, it may not even be constitutional. The confusion that’s being expressed here is that ‘authority’ means some type of total slavery or ownership….as if children were pets of their parents….no not even pets but rather some type of wall decorations for their parents! Hence a parent, if they wanted, could decline to educate their children and simply raise them in a dark closet!
Authority is usually not a property right but a duty. An officer may have authority over his troops, but not as some type of property right to use for his pleasure, like the worse type of Roman Emperor…but authority as part of his duty to accomplish the militay goals that he is assigned.
If children had no rights, then they couldn’t be tried ‘as adults’ for crimes they commit. Children are humans and hence have rights just as any other human does. Parents have authority over them only to the degree that it serves the objective of allowing children to assume a mature adulthood.
So now you own a small shop and a kid comes in with a $1 bill and wnats to buy some bubble gum. As a human, the child has a right to barter with you and trade for goods and services. The parental authority may forbid the kid to have a dollar, or forbid him to shop in the store, or forbid him to buy gum, etc. But that is a relationship between the child and parent. Unless you are knowingly putting yourself inbetween that, there can be no violation on your part.
July 1st, 2011 | 11:26 am
Also there are may times that authority is recognized. For example, you may have authority over an estate or be a medical power of attorney and have an authority to make medical decisions or a person may be appointed to be an authority for an adult who has serious mental disabilities or you may have authority as a police officer, boat captain, etc.
None of this authority is a ‘right’ in the sense that you have a property right to do what you want with your comic book collection (put them in a nice case, sell them, use them as toilet paper etc.). Authority = duty which means you have authority because you have a duty to get a particular job done. Your authority only exists to the degree that its the best way to get that job done. If you’re not going to get it done….well guess what, you can kiss your authority goodbye.
So yes parents have ‘first authority’ to educate their children. That means they are responsible for enrolling them in public school, in private school, hiring private tutors, or homeschooling. The public school doesn’t come to them, they must come to it. But that’s also a ‘first duty’ to secure education for their kids. If they opt instead to let the kids sit around playing Xbox day in day out, the state has every right to have a police officer knock on the door.
July 1st, 2011 | 12:27 pm
“I can’t recall whether my parents had to cosign as a freshman back in the day, but I’m not sure that makes it any better if they did–it was still MY obligation to pay the debt, not theirs.”
But co-signing actually means it’s both parties’ obligations to pay. So it’s your obligation to pay, AND theirs. And as to how it “doesn’t make it better” — well, I’m not speaking morally or from the standpoint of wisdom, but we’re talking about “age of majority” stuff. And not being able to do something without your parents’ consent at age 17 *is* materially different from being able to do it with their consent, in the context of this conversation.
“And it’s not like the average 20 year old knows anything about what it really means to committing themselves to pay a couple hundred bucks a month for 10-20 years. How can they?”
Again, that’s a reasonable point from a wisdom point of view, but that doesn’t have a lot to do with age of majority stuff, which is what we’re talking about. An 20 year old is legally an adult in every sense except for the alcohol and p0~n laws, and there’s no “parental rights” ability to stop him from getting himself into any kind of obligation or problem so long as those extending it to him (whether the government or the bank) deem him qualified. You might not like that when it’s your kid, but how do you get around that without doing something like making the age of majority 37?
July 1st, 2011 | 12:49 pm
Yet somehow, our society allows 17-year-olds to sign up for tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt, indenturing themselves for life before they’ve even reached adulthood. And as of a year ago or so, thanks to compassionate liberals, the possessor of this odious, predatory debt is only allowed to be the federal government, who while accepting the signature of minors is simultaneously telling them they’ll be miserable failures if they don’t. Despicable.
Another tedious person who thinks liberalism means “everything that annoys me about the state of the world today”.
First as Pentamom pointed out, no 17 yr old or even 18 yr old is likely to ‘have’ to sign for tens of thousands of debt. It’s a process that extends for years. As you point out there’s a certain amount of ‘lock in’….say after you finish your Freshman year most are inclined to move to th enext year but it’s hardly forced upon you and there are lots of people who DO take a year or two off from college before returning OR who take courses at a slower pace. If you’re juggling tens of thousands of student debt its NOT because some sinister liberal conned you into it at the tender age of 17, 18 or even 19.
Second, at some point is it ever your intention to accept adult responsibility for your decisions? Would you like us to make the age of consent 35 for you? OK maybe the Fed. gov’t shouldn’t make it so hard to shake off student loan debt in bankruptcy but the fact is it isn’t morally right to assume debt with the idea of defaulting on it. If the Fed. gov’t changes the law to make it as easy to stiff your student loan creditors as it is your credit card lenders in bankruptcy, that may be a wise policy but it’s not very adult of you to make it your plan to stiff either!
Third, no liberal is forcing you to get a college degree. The fact is over the last few decades the premium in earnings for those with college degrees has increased. That’s the market. If you think that’s stupid, then start a business and hire HS grads at wages slighly higher than HS grads typically make but less than college grads and make ample profits to pay off your student loans. Will that trend continue forever? Who knows. But you made a calculated decision that getting your degree, even with debt, would pay off for you more in the long run than remaining debt free but without college. Maybe that was smart, maybe it was dumb, it may even be unfair in the sense that life’s unfair in many ways but please try to check this buck passing trait to hypothetical ‘evil liberals’.
“And it’s not like the average 20 year old knows anything about what it really means to committing themselves to pay a couple hundred bucks a month for 10-20 years. How can they?”
How about mandated abortion for any 20 yr old who becomes or makes a woman pregnant then? If you can’t be adult enough at 20 to commit to a $100 a month then when do you plan on being an adult? There are in history and today 20 yr olds who have committed themselves to raising kids, being injured or killed in armed service, started businesses, and so on. Should they be told to wait because you’d like adulthood to start at 30?
July 1st, 2011 | 1:26 pm
Boonton, even in one year they might have to sign for that much. College education is getting absurdly expensive. An instate student living on-campus at the University of Connecticut is looking at a base cost of $21k a year.
What also is bad is that many credit card companies aggresively market to teens under the guise of “building your credit.” Capitol One especially markets cards with some staggering APR-24% plus. They are traps that can create a devastating amount of debt in a very short time.
It’s not germane to the argument, but I just wanted to remark on this, because we as a nation need to discuss the problems of debt for young adults.
July 1st, 2011 | 1:40 pm
I agree that credit should be reined in. I too got caught up in the credit card game that’s played with college students. But young adults are always going to be easy marks for abusive marketing. Adulthood may be delayed but I’m not sure how you can delay the learning cuve of adulthood.
In terms of college becoming absurdly expensive, its less absurd as the wage premium for college has increased about as fast. Yes in 1960 you might have paid your way thru college with only a part time job. But in 1960 the difference between the average college degree holder and non-degree holder wasn’t as big. If you can increase wages for non-college degree holders you may be able to address this. How you can do that, though, I haven’t the slightest idea.
July 1st, 2011 | 1:56 pm
“Another tedious person who thinks liberalism means “everything that annoys me about the state of the world today”.”
When did I say any such thing? Nowhere. It is quite simply a fact that student loans were completely nationalized last year, and it was a liberal initiative.
This pathetic nonsensical start made me feel safe in not bothering to read the rest of your blather. Feel free to summarize if you’re actually interested in a serious conversation. I feel pretty secure that’s not the case though, now is it?
July 1st, 2011 | 2:05 pm
“I agree that credit should be reined in. I too got caught up in the credit card game that’s played with college students.”
And yet the government of the USA never told you you’ll be a miserable failure unless you max out your credit card, did it? Nor did it make you take out a USA government credit card, did it? But that’s pretty much what they do with student loans.
July 1st, 2011 | 3:23 pm
You are told the truth. You pay a few hundred a month for 20 years…maybe but you make many more hundred a month with a college degree. Yes there are non-college grads who make huge bucks and college grads who fail but on average that’s a true statement and while the ‘government’ may have encouraged you to persue a college degree its you that did it as an adult…..
July 1st, 2011 | 3:26 pm
And in reality you almost certainly didn’t go to college because the gov’t told you you’d be a failure if you didn’t. You went to college because your buddies mocked those not destined for college as losers and your parents fretted what type of future you’d have if you didn’t go to college (or a good college). You got into the act and more or less went to the gov’t saying “how do I get myself in and through college” which is probably how you ended up with your student loan debt which I suppose you now think Bill Clinton or whoever bamboozled you into taking.
July 1st, 2011 | 3:52 pm
“Boonton, even in one year they might have to sign for that much. College education is getting absurdly expensive. An instate student living on-campus at the University of Connecticut is looking at a base cost of $21k a year. ”
Not exactly. First of all, I’m pretty sure the government programs simply don’t allow you to borrow that much at once, particularly in freshman year.
Secondly, nobody pays that full $21,000 tuition except for kids who come from families with income and assets sufficient to afford it without government loans for the entire amount.
I’m not justifying those tuition costs — they’re ridiculous. An “ordinary” private college can run you $50K/year now, which is criminal. But those are known as the “asking price.” Very, very few people pay that amount out of pocket and I don’t think anybody ever borrows the full amount unless parents who have the means opt not to assist.
July 1st, 2011 | 4:02 pm
You have quite the predilection for just making stuff up, don’t you? My student loan debts are paid off. College was all in all a very good financial deal for me. I never said otherwise. My concern about this issue is moral, not personal. I feel sorry for you that you obviously don’t know what that feels like.
July 1st, 2011 | 7:55 pm
Morally if college raises your income an average of $19,500 a year for your whole working life why shouldn’t you pay for it? People think nothing about paying, say, $250K for a home even after the crash. A home take 30 years to pay off, though. If you were paying $20K a year on rent you would say a home was a fine and fair investment to make….even though its a huge debt and will take a long time to pay off.
Likewise as tough as it seems, the student loan is probably the fairest way to pay for college. The person who pays the student loan back is the person who benefits the most from the college education. I can’t say in principle that’s immoral.
If you don’t like the cost of college the problem is the relative wroth of college. There’s no particular law of physics or economics that says the premium on a college education has to be so high. Maybe there’s ways we can bring up the pay of the non-college bound (apprenticeship programs, better vocational schools, more job based learning etc.).
I think it would be a good idea if financers could somehow share the risk of income. I would love to see some type of ’10%’ loan where you pledge something like 10% of your income for 10 years. If you work as a low paid teacher you pay less, if you score a high flying Wall Street bond trader position you pay far more. But I don’t see how it could work without the gov’t involved.
July 1st, 2011 | 10:25 pm
“the student loan is probably the fairest way to pay for college.”
Actually, student loan programs are a major reason why college is so expensive.
July 3rd, 2011 | 8:05 am
Typically if you increase the price of something people will buy less of it…unless you increase its worth more than you increase the price. People will pay more for a five star hotel room than a one star, for example.
The increase in student loans has increased the price of college. The previous status quo was scholarships and grants that often paid the bulk or even all of college’s costs. Those things are still around but they haven’t grown anynear as fast as college cost. So the ‘cost’ of college has gone from being mostly paid by scholarships (i.e. ‘free’ to the student) to being paid by loans (which are not ‘free’, even if the student doesn’t really comprehend paying a debt off over many years, he still knows its a worse deal than paying nothing!).
To put it another way, supose you have a box that will spit out $10K a year and were going to auction it off on ebay. Suppose someone else has a box that will spit out $19K per year and does the same. Don’t be surprised if you second box goes for twice as much. Also don’t be surprised if such a box’s price ends up being several hundred thousand dollars and if those seeking to buy the box go into debt to do so.
Student loans can’t make college more expensive unless the value of a college education becomes worth more.
July 4th, 2011 | 10:52 am
“Student loans can’t make college more expensive unless the value of a college education becomes worth more.”
That would be true if college education were a more or less rational market. I think there’s a good case to be made that certain cultural factors make the market somewhat irrational. People don’t always calculate the expected earning potential of a college education very well.
July 4th, 2011 | 12:06 pm
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/06/education-and-raises.html has a very nice chart. The college market is quite rational. On average the degree clearly boosts one’s earnings for a lifetime, therefore its quite rational that degrees are expensive and going into debt is quite rational. You pay off over time something whose benefits accrue to you over time. It’s no different than using debt to buy a business or rental property which you’ll pay off with the assets cash flow.
Now maybe its irrational that college degrees pay so much more. But then we aren’t talking about the college market being irrational…but the whole world being irrational.
July 5th, 2011 | 9:38 am
Boonton — your chart proves that college degrees increase earning power. Of course they do.
But the issue isn’t whether all college educations in the aggregate, regardless of price, increase earning power, regardless of amount or field, but whether they increase it enough for a given person, field, and major, to make it worth the price of the education and the risk of the debt.
That’s a far more complex calculation, and one that I contend most people aren’t even capable of (I’m sure not.) In a way, though, it’s irrelevant that most people are incapable of it, because most people don’t even *try.* So how could it be an economically rational decision if people don’t even bother to calculate the actual economics of their own situation?
July 5th, 2011 | 10:55 am
Student loans are subsidies. Subsidies are not done for the benefit of consumers, but for producers. No one except those selling education should think it a good idea for the government to be handing out money for purchasing education.
If you really think that the college market is rational, read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/education/12tuition.html
“In Tuition Game, Popularity Rises With Price
COLLEGEVILLE, Pa. — John Strassburger, the president of Ursinus College, a small liberal arts institution here in the eastern Pennsylvania countryside, vividly remembers the day that the chairman of the board of trustees told him the college was losing applicants because of its tuition.
It was too low.
So early in 2000 the board voted to raise tuition and fees 17.6 percent, to $23,460 (and to include a laptop for every incoming student to help soften the blow). Then it waited to see what would happen.
Ursinus received nearly 200 more applications than the year before. Within four years the size of the freshman class had risen 35 percent, to 454 students. Applicants had apparently concluded that if the college cost more, it must be better.”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact