Million Student March

[ca2midwestmom]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/foreign...f-california-home-state-admissions-1447650060

I don't believe that college education should be free (for many reasons already stated), but I do think college students are/have been getting the short end of the stick in terms of tuition costs and admittance....and the universities created this problem (a problem for students; a windfall for the schools).

I graduated from UCSD in the 80's and had students loans of <$2000/year to cover tuition/books as a California resident. The current tuition/books cost at UCSD is $15,000/year for a California resident. That doesn't include R&B. $25-30,000/year total for a CA resident living on campus attending UCSD (a public university); double that for a non-CA resident.

BUT just getting accepted has become the hardest part for the UC and Cal State schools, because "the growth in international students has contributed to tighter admission standards at many UC campuses. The UC system accepted 62% of in-state applicants in the 2014 school year, down from 84% four years earlier." Colleges have put a priority on getting higher tuition payments from OOS & international students at the cost of in-state students' acceptance. "This doesn’t sit right with families whose children have been denied admission: They say they have been paying California taxes for decades and that state universities have lost sight of their mission." When my two nieces, both in the top 2% of their public So Cal high schools, applied to CA state schools in the mid-2000's, they were encouraged to attend a community college for the first two years and then transfer to a Cal State/UC school. Both had top SAT scores, top academics, ECs etc. But the UC & Cal State systems were already overloaded from admitting high numbers of OOS and international students, and in all reality just didn't have enough room for all of the CA residents that wanted to attend and were qualified to attend.

Public colleges & universities across the country charge exorbitant amounts for tuition. My daughter attends a State college in the Midwest as a in-state student, and I still cannot believe what she is being charged for tuition.

So, back to the Million Student March cause .... even if college education became free to everyone, just how many eligible students would be accepted into their local state U at the risk of the U losing $$ from international students?

It's a good thing I attended college in the '80s, because I don't think I would make the cut now.

 

[cb7893]

http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/ncaa/sports-at-any-cost

Don't prejudge based on the source.

 

[MombaBomba]

Why is a college degree necessary for this day and age? Or is it only specific college degrees that are necessary? There are many degrees that are what I classify as "feel good" degrees. You get your moment on the stage with a piece of paper, and when you walk off, it's down into your parent's basement because there are no employment opportunities for that degree.

Back in the day, a college degree usually prepared you for entry into the real world by educating you with the skills/information/ideas needed to succeed at a profession. Now, there are too many students who see college as an "experience" as opposed to a "preparation." Thus the rise of "feel good" degrees. Practicality is sacrificed on the alter of "personal emotional development."

Students are flocking to colleges with no real clue of what they want to study. They are undeclared. The number of years to graduate with a bachelors is now 5 years due to indecision. They are adding years along with serious dollars to the cost of their degree. Most of those who were clueless when I went to college, attended community college for a couple of years while they worked part to full time in order to figure out where their interests lay. Now many of them head off to college where they are told by advisers "awe, little Johnny it's ok if you are unsure. Explore, take your time. You can stay and take as long as you need in order to take all the classes to get whatever degree you finally decide on." Meanwhile, the debt piles up.

Then all those cushy salaries and benefits for professors and administrators. Have you researched what some of them get paid, their responsibilities and benefits? It is obscene what some of these people make. Add to that the whole "we must have research" to be considered legitimate mentality of colleges. How much is it costing to pay for the research? How much of that research is actually benefiting the student as opposed to some professor's or college's ego? How many classes are taught by TAs because the professor is too busy doing research? I am not against research, but if you ever look into some of the "research" being performed in your state colleges....well you might do a double take.

There are many reasons why the cost of college has gotten out of hand. I suspect the "entitlement" mentality has played a large part of it. Whether it is the entitlement of the young to a degree and the "college experience" to the entitlement of college personnel to recognition and money. It's a mess!

 

[New Kid]

Sure, some students see college as an 'experience' and go for 'personal emotional development', but that's a really small fraction of students enrolled in undergraduate programs. Here's a quick read about the changing (or already changed) demographics of college students: http://consulting.aacrao.org/public...anagers-and-what-they-can-do-to-attract-them/

73% of undergraduate students are non-traditional. Non-traditional is defined the following way: "does not enter postsecondary enrollment in the same year that he or she completed high school, attends part-time for at least part of the academic year, works full time, is considered financially independent from a legal guardian, has dependents other than a spouse, is a single parent, does not have a high school diploma but a General Educational Development (GED) test."

Two issues are being conflated here. Everyone knows an entitled, impractical 20-something who goes to an expensive college on his/her parents' dime and then is unemployable. That story isn't very sympathetic, and it's easy to dismiss this as an issue of 'those entitled kids'. But those stories represent a tiny fraction of the college student population.

The vast majority of students in public institutions of higher ed are non-traditional and are doing the things identified in previous posts (taking time off, trying to work his/her way through college, going to CC, balancing school & family, etc.). Those people are taking on more and more debt each year to do exactly what you are all suggesting is a practical, ideal way to approach college. This is problematic.

I really don't think those 73% of students -- single moms, financially independent 25 year olds, full time workers -- are lazy and entitled. Again, this is nearly 3/4 of college enrollees. This is not ancedote; this is data.

Per your initial question MombaBomba: It's not clear to me why college degrees are necessary today for a lot of jobs. But they're often required -- or at least a certain number of college credits and an indication that you're pursuing a degree are -- and my interpretation is that our HR gurus have started using them as a baseline way to assess focus, determination, etc. It's a blanket credential such that a generic degree -- not a specific one, but just any college degree -- is a required credential for all kinds of professions in many places. Yes, you can find anecdotal exceptions, but in general the past 20 years has seen a dramatic rise in college credits being required even to apply for jobs. I already listed a bunch in a previous post but things from police officers to pre-school employees to municipal employees to restaurant managers to executive assistants, and so on and so forth.

I don't think this is a good system, but since it IS the system currently, making it cost-prohibitive for people to access this credentialing process is not a good policy.

 

[MombaBomba]

Sure, some students see college as an 'experience' and go for 'personal emotional development', but that's a really small fraction of students enrolled in undergraduate programs. Here's a quick read about the changing (or already changed) demographics of college students: http://consulting.aacrao.org/public...anagers-and-what-they-can-do-to-attract-them/

73% of undergraduate students are non-traditional. Non-traditional is defined the following way: "does not enter postsecondary enrollment in the same year that he or she completed high school, attends part-time for at least part of the academic year, works full time, is considered financially independent from a legal guardian, has dependents other than a spouse, is a single parent, does not have a high school diploma but a General Educational Development (GED) test."

Two issues are being conflated here. Everyone knows an entitled, impractical 20-something who goes to an expensive college on his/her parents' dime and then is unemployable. That story isn't very sympathetic, and it's easy to dismiss this as an issue of 'those entitled kids'. But those stories represent a tiny fraction of the college student population.

The vast majority of students in public institutions of higher ed are non-traditional and are doing the things identified in previous posts (taking time off, trying to work his/her way through college, going to CC, balancing school & family, etc.). Those people are taking on more and more debt each year to do exactly what you are all suggesting is a practical, ideal way to approach college. This is problematic.

I really don't think those 73% of students -- single moms, financially independent 25 year olds, full time workers -- are lazy and entitled. Again, this is nearly 3/4 of college enrollees. This is not ancedote; this is data.

Per your initial question MombaBomba: It's not clear to me why college degrees are necessary today for a lot of jobs. But they're often required -- or at least a certain number of college credits and an indication that you're pursuing a degree are -- and my interpretation is that our HR gurus have started using them as a baseline way to assess focus, determination, etc. It's a blanket credential such that a generic degree -- not a specific one, but just any college degree -- is a required credential for all kinds of professions in many places. Yes, you can find anecdotal exceptions, but in general the past 20 years has seen a dramatic rise in college credits being required even to apply for jobs. I already listed a bunch in a previous post but things from police officers to pre-school employees to municipal employees to restaurant managers to executive assistants, and so on and so forth.

I don't think this is a good system, but since it IS the system currently, making it cost-prohibitive for people to access this credentialing process is not a good policy.

The study quoted is from 2002. That is data from over 10 years ago. They have a very broad classification for non-traditional. By this study, I could have been classified as non-traditional, and I achieved my BS in 4 years in the 1980s. Frankly, their qualification for non-traditional is too broad. I knew more people who were working part time or even full time during part or some of their college years than those who didn't work. I also knew a lot who were declared as independent from their parents & lived off campus in order to get the lower state tuition (they were out of state their freshman year).

I never stated *all* college students. I said many. My post was basically some other contributing factors which influence the cost of higher education. I had not intended it to come off as the only reasons. I probably could have worded that better.

Still, there are way too many college students graduating with a feel good degree and no clue how to put that degree to use in gaining employment or building a future in terms of a higher degree (law, medicine, Masters, PHD, etc. etc. etc.). Philosophy is practical when used as the foundation for a law degree for example (knew someone who did that to develop ability to argue a point and research), but when it is seen as something to do in order to graduate with a degree, then it is impractical and feel good.

The entitlement mentality doesn't just exist among 20-somethings who go to an expensive college on his/her parents' dime. I have observed the same mentality among those who go on someone else's dime (academic scholarship, financial aide, athletic scholarship etc.), go to public school and are not in college. The entitlement mentality crosses all socioeconomic backgrounds.

I agree about the prohibitive costs of higher education. I have one in private university, though he is graduating with a "practical" degree. With scholarships, his 4 year degree at private university costs the same as it would in our state university. My state doesn't really acknowledge academic excellence in terms of scholarships. They just look at socioeconomic background. It would have been cheaper for one of my kids to go to an out of state university than it was for him to attend his home state university. Why? Because this out of state university valued academics and offered him a huge academic scholarship to attend.

 

[Jcleppe]

In our state, the flagship university has around 30% of the students attending on the Promise Scholarship, have a certain GPA (Not that high...in the 2's) and have a family income that qualifies for Pell Grants or State Need Grants. These students attend with total tuition and fees paid.

This is a great program but one that does raise issues with some, including myself.

Given that 30% are under the Promise Program and at least 30% are international or OOS students, that leaves a third, instate students that pay the rack rate for college mainly because their family income is above the cutoff. A large portion of these families are not that far above the cutoff but still pay the full rate. Just to be clear, I agree that there are some families in this bracket that make enough that tuition is not an issue, but it is not and overwhelming number.

Here in lies my issue, Student A with the Promise Scholarship graduates with a degree in say Business, Student B graduates with the same degree but has had to take on debt to pay for some portion of the tuition expense over four years. Both students, when they graduate, have the same opportunities afforded them by their degree, at this point the amount of money their families make have no bearing on their future success in the field they studied. The only difference is that Student A has no debt, and Student B has what could be significant debt for the same degree, why?, because their parents made just a bit too much money per year.

While I think these programs are great, I do think it would be beneficial to more students if this money that is placed aside for the Promise scholarships would be used to lower tuition across the board for this group that makes up 60 plus percent of the student population.

Tuition at the flagship school here is now $11,700 per year, it was lowered from $12,400 this year. If the Promise money was spread out it could result in tuition being lowered below $7,000 per year. Granted some may still qualify for FAFSA or Pell Grants which can help with overall costs but the burden would be spread out, while more students may need loans, the loans would be smaller and more manageable for everyone.

Some great discussions on this thread, have enjoyed reading all the opinions.

 

[cb7893]

Still, there are way too many college students graduating with a feel good degree and no clue how to put that degree to use in gaining employment or building a future in terms of a higher degree (law, medicine, Masters, PHD, etc. etc. etc.). Philosophy is practical when used as the foundation for a law degree for example (knew someone who did that to develop ability to argue a point and research), but when it is seen as something to do in order to graduate with a degree, then it is impractical and feel good.

I hate to say it, but many law degrees are falling into that category of unjustifiable education expense.

The National Association for Law Placement reports that fewer than half of lawyers graduating in 2011 eventually landed jobs in a law firm. Only 65 percent found positions requiring passage of the bar exam. At a time when many law school graduates are shouldering student-loan debts of $125,000 or more, compensation has declined painfully — the median starting salary for new lawyers in 2012 was just $61,000. And quite a few can’t find any work at all: Nine months after receiving their law degrees, 11.2 percent of the class of 2013 was unemployed.

 

[cb7893]

Tuition at the flagship school here is now $11,700 per year, it was lowered from $12,400 this year. If the Promise money was spread out it could result in tuition being lowered below $7,000 per year. Granted some may still qualify for FAFSA or Pell Grants which can help with overall costs but the burden would be spread out, while more students may need loans, the loans would be smaller and more manageable for everyone.

J,

I live in one of those states with a similar generous finaid program for those who need it.

You make a good point, but remember Pell grants are small and the income cutoff is low. One would like to think that the families of those receiving the "Promise" grants are being asked to contribute something, anything really and that the minimum academic standards to maintain them should be closer to a 3.0. It shouldn't just be an entitlement.

DS #2 has an all in scholarship requiring a 3.5 in MechE.

BTW how's your DS #2?

 

[MemberLG]

I think we perceive the problem as fundamentally different, MemberLG. When you write this: "The tragedy is those in the middle income group of average or lesser academics, who bought the bill of goods that they should strive for the most prestigious education, at whatever expense and then heavily borrowed to make it happen."

I don't see that as the problem. I think the striving for prestige is a tangentially related problem, but one that only affects a statistically minor portion of the population.

I didn't write that. However, I do agree with it. Reading you posts got me thinking and I started to think about cars. Not everybody needs a car, but most folks want it. For certain folks, a car is must have. Many folks buy cars that they can't afford for various reasons. Are we going to feel bad for someone that purchased a $50k BMW instead of $20k Ford and having a buyer's remorse or can't make payments?

We are forced to make choices all the time. Regardless of why or how, the individual is responsible for the decision he or she makes.

 

[MemberLG]

I hate to say it, but many law degrees are falling into that category of unjustifiable education expense.

The National Association for Law Placement reports that fewer than half of lawyers graduating in 2011 eventually landed jobs in a law firm. Only 65 percent found positions requiring passage of the bar exam. At a time when many law school graduates are shouldering student-loan debts of $125,000 or more, compensation has declined painfully — the median starting salary for new lawyers in 2012 was just $61,000. And quite a few can’t find any work at all: Nine months after receiving their law degrees, 11.2 percent of the class of 2013 was unemployed.

There was a Businessweek article that alleged that law schools are accepting less qualified candidates to fill their seats.

"Getting Into Law School Is Easier Than It Used to Be, and That's Not Good"

"LSAT scores matter because they tend to correlate closely with scores on one section of the bar exam, so when schools admit lower-scoring students on the former test, they risk producing more graduates who have a hard time passing the bar."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-easier-than-it-used-to-be-and-thats-not-good

Another article

"As fewer Californians pass the bar, are LSAT scores an early indicator of success?"

"Research has found that the LSAT is a key predictor of bar performance. But some school administrators dispute those findings, saying results on the 180-point LSAT don't necessarily indicate success on the bar."

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-85028150/

 

[MombaBomba]

Still, there are way too many college students graduating with a feel good degree and no clue how to put that degree to use in gaining employment or building a future in terms of a higher degree (law, medicine, Masters, PHD, etc. etc. etc.). Philosophy is practical when used as the foundation for a law degree for example (knew someone who did that to develop ability to argue a point and research), but when it is seen as something to do in order to graduate with a degree, then it is impractical and feel good.

I hate to say it, but many law degrees are falling into that category of unjustifiable education expense.

The National Association for Law Placement reports that fewer than half of lawyers graduating in 2011 eventually landed jobs in a law firm. Only 65 percent found positions requiring passage of the bar exam. At a time when many law school graduates are shouldering student-loan debts of $125,000 or more, compensation has declined painfully — the median starting salary for new lawyers in 2012 was just $61,000. And quite a few can’t find any work at all: Nine months after receiving their law degrees, 11.2 percent of the class of 2013 was unemployed.

That depends on if you graduate and get a job as a lawyer. I don't see it as unjustifiable. This is in the category of "you have to be better than the average bear to get somewhere."

The end result of a law degree is to become a lawyer. So there is a purpose other than "feel good." The question is market saturation and competition for employment.

 

[cb7893]

The question is market saturation and competition for employment.

You're right, but it's the same for for law degrees, Engineering degrees, 19th century Haitian poetry degrees and every other degree.

 

[MemberLG]

That depends on if you graduate and get a job as a lawyer. I don't see it as unjustifiable. This is in the category of "you have to be better than the average bear to get somewhere."

The end result of a law degree is to become a lawyer. So there is a purpose other than "feel good." The question is market saturation and competition for employment.

How about the individual incorrectly assessing his or her own abilities and potential? Bringing the discussion back to SA, I worked with many candidates that appear to be fully dedicated and committed to becoming an Army officer. However, some had deficiencies. When reminded about their deficiencies, their typical answer is that given a chance that can overcome their deficiencies. (i.e. just give me a chance to prove myself). There are always exceptions, but exceptions are like winning the lottery. Most people won't bet $1ooK on lottery tickets. If so, why should someone bet $100k or more on college education with uncertain outcomes?

 

[cb7893]

They should cast a wider net and go after some of the not for profits institutions as well.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-profit-educator-to-pay-95-5m-over-recruitment-tactics/

 

[MombaBomba]

That depends on if you graduate and get a job as a lawyer. I don't see it as unjustifiable. This is in the category of "you have to be better than the average bear to get somewhere."

The end result of a law degree is to become a lawyer. So there is a purpose other than "feel good." The question is market saturation and competition for employment.

How about the individual incorrectly assessing his or her own abilities and potential? Bringing the discussion back to SA, I worked with many candidates that appear to be fully dedicated and committed to becoming an Army officer. However, some had deficiencies. When reminded about their deficiencies, their typical answer is that given a chance that can overcome their deficiencies. (i.e. just give me a chance to prove myself). There are always exceptions, but exceptions are like winning the lottery. Most people won't bet $1ooK on lottery tickets. If so, why should someone bet $100k or more on college education with uncertain outcomes?

There are those who over estimate their ability and potential. Was that because of an "entitlement mentality", or because they really didn't understand their true strengths and weaknesses, or they underestimated the necessary commitment/effort to successfully achieve their end goal? Sometimes we don't really know what it takes or what it is like until we experience it.

One of the more difficult things to learn is how to make an honest assessment of yourself. To recognize strengths and weaknesses, positives and negatives, talents and potential. I think if kids learned how to be more honest with themselves, there would less college kids in over their heads (debt, etc.) and/or wouldn't expect so much is owed them.

 

[MombaBomba]

An interesting video on the topic of feelings vs. facts in modern education. If you believe feelings matter more than facts, you may not want to watch this..........

http://www.usworldreport.com/this-hilarious-video-mocks-the-bizarre-liberalism-in-schools/

 

[MemberLG]

There are those who over estimate their ability and potential. Was that because of an "entitlement mentality", or because they really didn't understand their true strengths and weaknesses, or they underestimated the necessary commitment/effort to successfully achieve their end goal? Sometimes we don't really know what it takes or what it is like until we experience it.

One of the more difficult things to learn is how to make an honest assessment of yourself. To recognize strengths and weaknesses, positives and negatives, talents and potential. I think if kids learned how to be more honest with themselves, there would less college kids in over their heads (debt, etc.) and/or wouldn't expect so much is owed them.

I do understand your points. But and however, decisions we make are like taking the SAT. After taking the test, can't go back and change our answers or ask for more points for whatever reason.

I do feel bad for students making bad decisions because they don't know any better. But once they make the decision, they have to be responsible for their decisions. What should we do in practical terms for feeling bad for students making bad decision. I don't know but I won't vote for making public college free or forgiving their student debts.

 

[Jcleppe]

How about the individual incorrectly assessing his or her own abilities and potential?

There is another side to this, which can be outside pressure to pursue a degree in STEM when the future college student does not have the skills or level of interest needed to succeed. Students are told from many directions that they should only go for the "Quality" majors. Many start college thinking they can just work their way through, along they way they get behind, frustrated, disillusioned. Some will realize this early and change majors and some will simply drop out. The same can be said for the family that focuses only on college for their kids, never looking at other options like vocational schools, skilled trades and other opportunities These kids often start college only to drop out after getting into debt, leaving it hard for them to look at other options.

 

[MombaBomba]

There are those who over estimate their ability and potential. Was that because of an "entitlement mentality", or because they really didn't understand their true strengths and weaknesses, or they underestimated the necessary commitment/effort to successfully achieve their end goal? Sometimes we don't really know what it takes or what it is like until we experience it.

One of the more difficult things to learn is how to make an honest assessment of yourself. To recognize strengths and weaknesses, positives and negatives, talents and potential. I think if kids learned how to be more honest with themselves, there would less college kids in over their heads (debt, etc.) and/or wouldn't expect so much is owed them.

I do understand your points. But and however, decisions we make are like taking the SAT. After taking the test, can't go back and change our answers or ask for more points for whatever reason.

I do feel bad for students making bad decisions because they don't know any better. But once they make the decision, they have to be responsible for their decisions. What should we do in practical terms for feeling bad for students making bad decision. I don't know but I won't vote for making public college free or forgiving their student debts.

Although I think college costs are outrageous. I do NOT in any way shape or form support this notion of "free public" college.

I agree that as the student choose that school, the student is now responsible for finding a way to finance that school. The student was not forced into going to college BigBucks. The student choose it for whatever reasons/priorities. There are consequences and responsibilities for every choice/decision we make in life.

I was only voicing my opinions and thoughts on how college costs and attitudes have gotten to this point. A shocker, I know, as I am usually so demure

 

[New Kid]

I don't disagree with anyone's point about individual choices. Yes, we all make choices all the time. Yes, as individuals we all have to live with the choices we make. I tend to have a lot of sympathy for people who unwittingly make bad choices when young, but, of course, they have to find a viable way to make a go of it regardless. No argument there.

But to me, this question is a macro question about the way that we're structuring educational opportunity in this country rather than a micro question about a given individual's personal choice. The macro issue is that our economy is growing in ways that produce jobs that (currently) demand college preparation, yet the cost of that preparation is skyrocketing. That's a recipe for a mismatched labor market.

You're right Momba, the data I linked to before is from 2002. It was just the first easily linkable document I found. Here's more up-t0-date data with more nuance: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csb.asp.

As you'll see, it indicates similar things -- the main difference is the explosive growth of the private, for-profit college industry, which can be seen with updated data in the following chart (specifically, the fourth graph down): http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp

But my main point is that if we typify the current college-debt holders inaccurately -- as simply entitled teenagers majoring in namby-pamby fields -- we risk missing the point of the argument. It is a data-confirmed fact that the vast majority of students enrolled in college today are enrolled in public colleges, and that the actual majority (50+%) are either enrolled at CC, or are a non-traditional student. The college debt crisis is not because 18 or 19 or 20 year olds are choosing the Cadillac over the Ford. It's because college costs everywhere are rising and everyone is taking on debt. You can read about these patterns more here: https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/trends-2010-who-borrows-most-brief.pdf

The reason I go to lengths to make this point is that we simultaneously have an economy that is growing in ways that produces jobs that require people to have college degrees. Here's a report out of a policy center at Georgetown that projects job growth through 2020: https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Recovery2020.ES_.Web_.pdf

The highlight takeaway from that report is that we're anticipating 65% of job growth will be jobs that require at least some college education. We're also projecting that there will be a 5 million person shortfall of people with adequate post-secondary education to fill those jobs.

The rising costs of college are making it cost-prohibitive for people to pursue post-secondary education at the exact moment that the growth of our economy is contingent upon people getting that education. This is just bad news for our economy. Not individually, but structurally.

Look, I think the girl in that video at the start of this thread is annoying. I'm pretty sure we all do. But dismissing the idea that we need to radically restructure the way that university degrees are financed in this country because a small portion of the people talking about this are entitled whiners is short-sighted. We DO need to rethink how college pricing operates and/or how 'college' is being used as a credential in the job market.

Maybe it means certain kinds of college (or post-secondary training) are free. Maybe it means we eliminate certain degree requirements from certain jobs. Maybe it means that we radically expand community college offerings and radically regulate the pricing systems at for-profit colleges. Maybe we start threatening wealthy colleges with revocation of their non-profit status if they don't start spending down some of their endowments. But something's gotta give.

The crisis that we're heading towards -- and the college debt bubble could end up being a genuine financial crisis -- is not just debt borne by entitled 19 year olds majoring in philosophy (just so everyone's aware, enrollment in the true liberal arts & humanities have been declining for years). It's also debt borne by students studying engineering, and students who spent their first two years at community college, and 30-somethings who are trying to go back and get a degree that will help them get a promotion at work. It's debt borne by people who we want to be financially stable so that they can participate in and contribute to the economy going forward. It's a real and serious problem, and even if the annoying girl in that video is a terrible messenger, there is a piece of her message that's worth listening to.