Thiel’s college dropout plan in bubble education

Thiel’s college dropout plan scrutinized by ‘60 Minutes

Investor and entrepreneur tells the CBS news magazine that a college degree is unnecessary for financial success, but critics call his program an elitist ploy.

Billionaire investor Peter Thiel.

Peter Thiel’s plan to pay college students to develop their promising concepts instead of attending to school is attracting students as well as critics.

Best known as a co-founder of PayPal, the Silicon Valley investor and entrepreneur has also made early-stage investments in companies such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Yelp. Now he’s investing in college students, awarding fellowships of $100,000 each to youth under 20 years old, essentially encouraging them to drop out of college to become entrepreneurs.

In an interview for tonight’s “60 Minutes,” Thiel tells Morley Safer that his program is a viable alternative to what he sees as a largely ineffective university system in which costs far outweigh benefits.

“We have a bubble in education, like we had a bubble in housing…everybody believed you had to have a house, they’d pay whatever it took,” says Thiel. “Today, everybody believes that we need to go to college, and people will pay — whatever it takes.”

He also notes that a college degree is not necessary to land a high-paying job.

“There are all sorts of vocational careers that pay extremely well today, so the average plumber makes as much as the average doctor,” Thiel tells Safer.

Critics call Thiel’s plan an elitist ploy that only encourages others to drop out or not attend college at all.

“Peter Thiel has made so much money that he is out of touch with the real world,” Vivek Wadhwa, an entrepreneur who teaches at Duke and Stanford, told Safer. “He doesn’t understand how important education is for the masses.”

“What I worry about is a message that’s getting out there to America that it’s okay to drop out of school, that you don’t have to get college. Absolutely dead wrong.”

“60 Minutes” airs at 7 p.m. PT/ET on CBS stations. Full segment embedded below.

http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf

Video available in another post: Thiel’s college dropout plan in bubble education

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7409142n

Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers.

Teach and Learn!

GEORGE TOWN: Lecturer Leong Kit Hong wants to go on teaching. And to do that, he will go on learning.

The 67-year-old INTI International College Penang physics lecturer is now pursuing a degree in Telecommunication in Wawasan Open University here.

He already holds a degree in Physics, Mathematics and a Master’s in Physics.

Meaningful gift: Leong (second right) and other lecturers choosing their syngonium plant at the Teachers Day celebration at INTI International College Penang Wednesday.

Leong, who joined the teaching profession 40 years ago, said the best way for him to serve the community was to be a good educationist, and he felt that all educationists should have the right blend of skills and the latest knowledge.

Leong, who is one of the college’s pioneer lecturers, said his greatest satisfaction “is seeing my students do as best as they can be”.

“When they do well in their studies, they will be able to serve society well later on,” he added.

Asked about his retirement plans, the grandfather of two said he would continue to teach as long as his health allowed him.

Leong, who has been teaching at the college for the past 18 years, was among the lecturers who joined the Teachers Day celebration at the college yesterday.

College chief executive principal Dr Michael Yap Sau Moi said 80 full-time lecturers were presented with a syngonium plant each.

“Teachers plant seeds of knowledge that grow forever,” he said. “As such, we chose to honour our lecturers with this plant instead of the usual roses.”

By KOW KWAN YEE
kowky@thestar.com.my

Video: Teach and Learn!
Lecturer Leong Kit Hong has embarked on a life-long learning quest so as to continue imparting quality knowledge to his students.

http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1

America, a “Generation of Sissies”

The “elephant in the room”— one big question in the minds of so many Americans is—“Why has the middle class in America lost so much ground, and when will it recover to earn better wages (and close the gap between the top earners and the middle class)?”   The answers are brutally simple:  ”Because America’s middle class became non-competitive globally,” and, “Not until American middle class workers—and the kind of work they do—become globally competitive again”   There are two huge problems facing the America in the future:  one is demographic, the other is cultural.

America

America (Photo credit: acb)

1)  “Baby Boomers” are retiring from the work force at the rate of 10,000 per day, and will do so for 17 years.  Most of them don’t have enough pension or 401(k) assets to support retirement for their life expectancy (15-20 years).  Too few employerswill hire these older folks, with their potential problems of age—reduced stamina and more health-related problems (and higher health care costs).

2) In recent decades, American parents have raised a “Generation of Sissies”—of spoiled, lazy, pampered and over-rated youth—who are highly educated, but in things that the world doesn’t value very much (and thus won’t pay for).  The top 25% may be as good, as bright, as motivated as ever, and will likely be as successful as ever.   The vast majority of this generation consists of formally educated, but spoiled, soft post-adolescents, who will struggle to be self-sustaining as adults.  Because of this, they will not be able to support the massive wave of retired “Boomers,” who will be going broke in their later years.  In eras past, the elderly were supported by the coming younger generation(s).  Those days are gone.

Members of this “Generation of Sissies” have been the victims of being coddled, babied, pampered, misled, misguided, and under-educated so badly that their “take care of me” upbringing cannot be sustained as they move into adulthood.   The parents, who did this, also share in the responsibility for the failure of America’s educational system.

I won’t lay all the “blame” for these failures on American youth—although they have been willing accomplices.  Parents and educators failed to prepare them for adult life in the cold harsh world, and where they must compete for gainful employment.  Then the youth chose easy and fun majors in college; not the ones in that are in demand by employers.  Thus they can’t find jobs, or certainly not good paying jobs.

For too long, American parents have also abdicated the responsibilities for educating and raising their children to a cadre of teachers and educational institutions ill suited for the task at hand.  Parents used to prepare children to take care of themselves—sort of an apprenticeship in becoming an adult.  Along the way, they used to teach them, and demand of them, that they learn critical personal skills, and useful, responsible habits—like earning your own way in life.  Not any more.

Now, because of globalization the jobs have gone to wherever qualified workers will do them for the least pay.  American workers have fallen behind global competitors.  Thus, the American middle class, now and for the foreseeable future, will have to “play catch up” —learning new skills and how to apply them—and then employers will have to regain the work that provides the jobs.  Otherwise, the middle class will continue to languish with subpar wages—at least until it becomes competitive again, if that ever happens.  The only part of the middle class with growth prospects are employees of new, small businesses that grow–when they are not stifled by an oppressive government regulations.

 

Worse yet, is the untimeliness of this “Generation of Sissies,” who think that there are no winners or losers.  They learned this because everyone got rewarded just for participating. Trophies no longer represented hard work and winning to them.  Success meant just being involved and  “showing up”—and sometimes, not even that.  News flash for Americans of this Generation of Sissies: In the cold, harsh world of 21st century global business there ARE winners and losers—and YOU are losing!

The “Generation of Sissies was victimized by too-busy parents, who abdicated their responsibilities, and tried to pass them off onto schools and teachers.  The teachers were not prepared to handle these new responsibilities.   Add to this the expectations that have been created: “free meals” (government funded, means “free”) that go far beyond the old school lunches; “free transportation” (or being driven to school);  “free extracurricular activities,” and much more.   And for this, all they had to do was“show up.”  Even grades are no longer a dose of reality.  Kinder words replace letter grades, to soften the truth of impending mediocrity.

Schools now teach “softer studies” (some of which used to be taught at home by parents) make up over 1/3 of total credits: 21st century life,” or “career-technical education, or “health, safety, & physical education,” or “visual & performing arts,” and “language arts literacy.”  Many students can’t write a grammatically correct sentence, and some don’t even see the point in learning to write (cursive) at all.  They use Text-messages and Tweets.   Signatures are nearly obsolete.

Schools still require a modicum of Math and Science, but not enough to meet todays employment demands.  In many cases, one 3-credit course (out of 110 credits) is offered on financial, economic, business, and entrepreneurial topics. Teachers are not held to the highest standards either, since doing so would require compensating the best ones more, and removing the worst ones—and teachers’ unions (and tenure) simply won’t allow that.  Today’s youth learn that being late, or absent isn’t so bad, because there is always an “excuse.”  But when they get in the world of work, employers expect employees to show up, on time, every day, and actually work all day.

Then parents pay a fortune (instead of putting it away for retirement) for college because it used to be a sure path to a decent job  (Now students graduate deeply in debt—over $1 Trillion and rising).  A degree in the arts or humanities may have once been the ticket to a job, but it’s not any more!   The youth of today and the adults of tomorrow simply have not been educated in the reality, the necessary skills and the knowledge they need to be competitive and self-sufficient.  Many do not have a clear understanding of how much hard work and  commitment they must invest to ensure their own future.

Too many people  feel sorry for these “underachievers,” even though part of the failure is their own fault.   The “Occupy movement” is filled with members of this “Generation of Sissies.”  They expect someone to “take care of them” and give them what they cannot or are unprepared to earn for themselves.   Who has what that they want?  The very people who worked hard to get a good education, studied, learned, applied themselves and learned to compete.

There will be negative comments about my title: “Generation of Sissies”—as being demeaning.  These comments will come mostly from the very same segment of society that helped create these problems—and still condones them.  To them I say, “Prove me wrong.”  Right now, the results confirm what I have written.  Until America puts the onus for education back onto the people where it belongs—first on youth and their parents, and next on quality schools and good teachers—the American middle class is doomed to remain stuck where it is.  Any other outcome is a delusion.

Can these problems be fixed?  Yes, but it took an entire generation or more to create them, so the fix will be slow and painful–as it is proving to be right now.   There is an even larger question.  It is not, ” WILL AMERICA COMPETE in the global economy of the 21st century?  It is, “DO AMERICANS HAVE THE WILL TO COMPETE?   Will Americans take the necessary actions to make themselves and future generations competitive.  We can only hope that the answer to this question is YES!

By  John Mariotti, Forbes Contributor

John Mariotti is an internationally known executive and an award-winning author. His newest book, co-authored with D. M. Lukas, Hope is NOT a Strategy: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency is available now at www.amazon.com  in paperback and Kindle, and in other e-book formats at www.smashwords.com

Newscribe : get free news in real time

American mounting student loans a ‘debt bomb’ waiting to explode! Inside America’s Student Loan Bubble!

It’s a vicious cycle. Many families in this country cannot afford the skyrocketing cost of higher education without student loans. But many graduates cannot find a job and cannot pay off the loans. As a result, they wind up in a much deeper hole (as the interest and collection fees accrue) with no way out.

Student loan debt in the U.S. now totals more than $1 trillion. That’s more than all the outstanding credit card debt in the country.

A recent report by the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys found that both students and parents are borrowing at record rates.

College seniors who graduated with student loans in 2010 owed an average of $25,250, up five percent from the previous year. Parents had an average of $34,000 in student loans for their children. The report says the number of these parental loans has jumped 75 percent since 2005-2006.

“These are enormous numbers,” says Ike Shulman, a bankruptcy attorney in San Jose, Calif.  “They’re basically setting us up for having a large number of fellow citizens become economically non-functional for the rest of their adult lives.”

Growing numbers of people are being crushed by this debt — unable to pay and unable to get relief. A recent nationwide survey of bankruptcy attorneys by NACBA found that most (81 percent) had seen a spike in the number of people with student loan debt looking for help. But in most cases, there is nothing a lawyer can do.

Current law makes it almost impossible to discharge student loan debt through bankruptcy. And unlike other unsecured debt, there is no statute of limitations on student loans. Lenders can pursue borrowers to the grave.

“It’s not fair and it needs to be corrected,” says NACBA president William Brewer. “It is a debt bomb that could cripple our society.”

The association’s report says the country faces a serious economic threat from this growing mountain of student debt, one that could be every bit as devastating as the mortgage meltdown.

“This will be a drag on the economy for the foreseeable future,” warns John Roa, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center and NACBA’s vice president.

It’s a problem for students and parents who co-signed loans
Dave Ingham, a disabled Vietnam veteran who lives in Minneapolis, fears he could lose his savings and his house because he co-signed student loans — now in default — for his son. Ingham is being sued by collectors.

His son Shannon has been unable to find work since October 2009. He’s now been diagnosed with acute anxiety disorder and depression. He’s still looking for work, but his father says the loan defaults keep him from getting hired.

“It seems that whenever he comes close to a job interview, they run a credit check, see his loan defaults and the interview does not proceed,” Ingham said at a recent telephone news conference arranged by NACBA.

Can something be done?
With student loans backed by the federal government, someone in trouble can try to get the payments deferred or modified. There are even loan forgiveness programs.  With private loans, it’s pay or end up in default.

The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys wants a “safety net” under student loans, just as there is for other consumer lending.

If you start a business that fails, they point out, you can file for bankruptcy and go on with your life. But college students — or their parents — don’t have the same protection.

“We need to make some common sense reforms, something like creating an escape valve to relieve some of the pressure before the whole thing blows sky high,” says NACBA vice president John Roa. “There’s no way to diffuse this bomb if the status quo remains the same.”

NACBA wants Congress to roll back the bankruptcy code to 1978, when borrowers who couldn’t pay off their student loans (private or government-guaranteed) could discharge that debt in bankruptcy.

Rep. Steve Cohen, (D-Tennessee), has introduced a bill, H.R. 2028: Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act, which would treat private student loan debt the same as other consumer debt.

Congressman Cohen says his bill would “restore fair treatment to Americans in severe financial distress” and give “an honest but unfortunate debtor a chance for a financial fresh start.”

The bill is supported by the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the American Council on Education and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as various consumer groups. There is currently no formal opposition.

The idea of making it easier to discharge student loan debt via bankruptcy will not sit well with those who backed bankruptcy reforms passed in 2005. Clearly, getting the law changed is a long-shot.

Dave Ingham says he doesn’t know how to solve the current situation. But he believes something should be done before others face the same financial ruin he does.

“It’s something that’s really out of control,” Ingham says. “There are thousands and thousands of us out there who need help with this situation. Please do not give up on us.”

By Herb Weisbaum, The ConsumerMan MSNBC.com

Unforgiven: Inside America’s Student Loan Bubble

by Ben DeMeter

Rickina Velte was four classes away from earning her bachelor’s degree before mounting student debt and the difficulty of raising a family as a student forced her to drop out. “I now am over $65,000 in debt with payments spiraling towards $400 a month,” she says. “I’ve consolidated at least twice, but I can’t keep track of where the payments are going. I can’t see a light at the end of the tunnel. My job barely pays enough to cover childcare and school expenses for my boys. I’m considering filing for bankruptcy, but I know that my student debt won’t be included. And on top of that, my husband is in the military and a bankruptcy could damage his security clearance. I’m at my wits’ end.”

Rickina’s story is tragic, but it’s just one of many. These days, tales of suffocating student debt are a dime a dozen. The national student debt now officially stands just shy of $1 trillion, and default rates for some loans are as high as 20% in some areas of the country. It’s easy to see that there’s something wrong with the way we pay for college.

But while media outlets continue to churn out reports on an impending student loan crisis, nobody has bothered to stop and wonder how exactly we got here in the first place. There’s been no talk of where or why things went wrong. We’d like to fix that. In this article, we’ll review the history of student lending and explore how unchecked enthusiasm for college, combined with an unregulated industry, has lead to the biggest financial crisis we’ve experienced since the housing collapse of 2008.

Sowing the Seeds of Student Aid

Let’s start at the beginning.The idea of financial aid for college students was introduced by the Indiana General Assembly in 1935. The assembly awarded college fee remissions to students who scored the highest on a variety of competitive tests. The pursuit of discounted college tuition quickly became so popular that the state created the Indiana State Financial Aid Association to oversee the distribution of scholarships at state schools like Indiana University.

The program was well-run, and as a result, many colleges in neighboring states elected to join the ISFAA as well. However, despite the ISFAA’s success, the program would remain relatively small until after World War II, when the race against the Soviet Union for global superiority drove the United States to push for higher education harder than it ever had before.

The U.S. government started looking for a way to get more of its citizens into college when the baby boom took off in the years following World War II. When the USSR successfully launched Sputnik in 1957, the U.S finally took action. In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act. The act set up a loan specifically designed to help students from lower-income families pay for college. The loan carried a 5% interest rate, and students had 10 years to pay if off after graduation. Believe it or not, this loan still exists today, though it’s now known as the Federal Perkins Loan.

The National Defense Education Act proved to be a rousing success. Over the next two decades, the government introduced numerous bills and programs designed to make the dream of higher education attainable by any citizen from any social class. These include the College Work-Study program (which allowed students to take co-ops to help subsidize the costs of their degrees), the Educational Opportunity Grant Program (which allowed exceptional students from low-income families to attend college for free) and the Middle Assistance Act, which removed the income on limit federal aid programs in order to make loans more available to America’s emerging middle class.

By 1983, the Department of Education had paid out more than $6 billion in student loans. Thanks to the availability of financial aid, America’s colleges and universities were enrolling over 10 million students annually. As a result, the perception of higher education changed.

A college degree was no longer considered an exceptional achievement, but a mandatory benchmark in a young person’s career. This, in turn, created an increased demand for graduate degrees, so Congress passed the Student Loan Consolidation and Technical Amendments Act, which allowed students pursuing a Master’s or PhD to consolidate their new loans with their existing ones into a Guaranteed Student Loan with a 10% interest rate.

At the time, the emphasis on higher education made sense. Between 1984 and 2008, unemployment peaked at 7.5% and was sometimes as low as 4%. People with college degrees were expected to earn 75% to 100% more in their lifetimes than people who only had a high school diploma. So where did things go wrong?

A State of Calamity

When we examine the student loan situation today, it looks like the garden we planted during the Cold War has grown out of control. Tuition has risen by 3,400% since 1972. The average student debt is now sitting at $25,000, up 25% in 10 years. The interest on loans guaranteed by the government-sponsored enterprise Sallie Mae is currently 3.4%, but it is set to double in July 2012. If it does, students will incur an additional $6.3 billion in debt over the 2012-2013 school year. Overall, national student debt is expected to exceed $1 trillion by the end of the year.

And of course there are the horror stories, the suicides and the tales of people like Bob Johnson, who took on student debt not once but twice in order to find work in an ailing market and who are now struggling just to stay off welfare. After graduating in 1987 with a BA in journalism, the NYC native struggled to find work. By the time he got a job that paid about $800 a month, he had already been forced to defer his loans twice. When he was laid off in the mid-’90s, he decided to go back to school for his MFA in theatre management, believing that it would increase his chances for employment. “I went back to school,” he says, “and foolishly took out more loans.”

Bob was laid off again when the recession struck in 2008. He has since struggled to find work. He’s managed to stay off of welfare by picking up odd jobs that run the gamut from photography and video production to apartment painting and social media coaching. In the meantime, his student debt has grown from less than $100,000 to several hundred thousand dollars. “The money coming in is not great,” he says. “I currently have $700 or so in the bank, $400 in a drawer and $5K in a retirement account that will probably eventually be seized by the student loan people. It eats at me every day. I don’t ever see myself getting out of debt. I worry about my future.”

Young professionals aren’t the only ones struggling with student debt, either. For every self-made baby boomer who is sick of hearing kids complain about their debt, there’s another for whom the dream of a lucrative post-college career turned sour. At the moment, people 60 and over owe more than $36 billion in student loans, and people aged 40-49 account for 15% of all student debtors.

“I didn’t understand at the time what I was signing or the consequences,” says Faith, who is still paying off her student loans at 44. “I didn’t understand about compound interest. I’ve tried to negotiate with them. I’ve begged for help from them. All Sallie Mae says is, ‘You’ll have to pay it back no matter what.’ But I can’t. I’ll probably die with this debt, and I’m just about to give up and stop even trying.”

A college degree was once the key to a brighter future. Now it’s more like a financial prison sentence for so many Americans. Where did things go wrong?

A Two-Headed Snake

Many people blame the job market, and on the surface, it makes sense. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the unemployment rate for Americans aged 16-24 is the worst it’s been in the 60 years that the institute has been monitoring the data. This is especially true for minorities. While the unemployment rate for white college graduates sits at 8.4%, it pales in comparison to the 13.8% unemployment rate for Latino college graduates and the 18% rate for black graduates. While the terrible job market certainly exacerbates the student debt crisis, it doesn’t explain why so many students have come to struggle with such significant debt.

When we trace the evolution of the student loan crisis, we see two major forces at work. The first is the ever-growing importance that we place on having a college degree, even though the majority of Americans have their doubts as to what higher education can actually provide for their children. For example, a study by Pew Research found that 57% of Americans think that college is not a good value, and 75% believe that it is too expensive for most people to afford. And yet, in a separate study, Pew discovered that 94% of parents still expect their children to go to college.

In many ways, it seems like a natural expectation. Think about what your grandfather did for a living, then what your father did, and then what career your parents expected of you. As a parent, you want your child to have a better life than the one you were able to provide for them. Unfortunately, this becomes exponentially harder to do with every generation, since the number of available “good” jobs is shrinking and becoming increasingly specialized. The Bureau of Labor Statistics states that “mid-skill” jobs – jobs that require less education than a bachelor’s degree – will account for 45% of the available work in 2014. But the rate of enrollment for trade and tech schools isn’t trending that way.

College students from middle-class families enter the system expecting to earn a certain amount of money for a certain career. When things don’t work out that way, life becomes difficult. Saddled with debt and in search of meaningful work, they’re forced to move back home and take a minimum-wage or part-time job that can barely pay for the grocery bill. And according to a Brookings Institution study, the odds that they’ll ever get a job related to their degree shrink with every month that passes.

Thomas J. Fox, the community outreach director at Cambridge Credit Counseling in Cambridge, MA, has seen this disconnect between expectations and reality all too often in his line of work. “Like many people in my generation, I was raised with the advice that securing a degree is the key to prosperity in America,” he says. “For the better part of a century, that logic has held true. However, things have changed. No longer is a degree itself a guarantee of success […]. Many students I’ve worked with have an unrealistic expectation on earnings. Many think they’ll enter the workforce making $80,000, with no experience. More alarmingly, others believe they’ll make a YouTube video that will go ‘viral’ gaining them fame and fortune, or develop the next Instagram.”

Lending Left Unchecked Goes Haywire

Many students enroll in expensive four-year universities without considering their future earning potential, and that certainly contributes to the student loan crisis. But it’s the unregulated lending industry itself that bears much of the blame for the skyrocketing debt. Mitchell D. Weiss, a professor of finance at the University of Hartford and the author of “Life Happens – A Practical Guide to Personal Finance from College to Career” sees the student debt crisis as an example of predatory lending gone out of control.

“I counsel a fair amount of students who are struggling with very large levels of debt and the stories are disturbingly similar,” he says. “Many of them were the first in their families to go to college. Mom and Dad didn’t have a lot of money, and they weren’t well versed when it came to financial matters. So, they left it up to Junior to figure out how to make that side of things work.”

Since the typical college student doesn’t know how to get a loan, Weiss says, they tend to lean on university-appointed loan officers for help. From there, the lenders are free to sign the student up for any sort of loan they please and pass it off as a “discounted” rate.

“Not only were the loans pretty easy to get,” Weiss says. “They didn’t have to be paid back until after Junior was done with school. In the meantime, though, the college got its money, the lenders – both government and private – are getting their interest and Junior’s living in Mom and Dad’s basement because the magnitude of his loan payments preclude his ability to afford a place of his own. Adding up the pieces, you have an educational failure that’s compounded by an alignment of interests between the schools and the lenders that runs contrary to those of the student borrower.”

The degree to which the lending industry’s interests have “conflicted” with those of America’s students is staggering. Testifying before Congress in a 1991 hearing, Senator William Roth stated that the Department of Education had an “abysmal record” in providing oversight to university lending policies.

Even that, though, is an understatement. Since the Department of Education became the officiating body in charge of overseeing university lending policies, it has given lending agency executives free reign over the system, and they’ve used their power to squeeze America’s college students for every penny they’re worth. According to Citizens for an Educated and Democratic Republic co-founder Peter O’Lalor, “Predatory lending has been found to be widespread throughout the industry in both nonprofit and for-profit student loan companies. One student loan collection company even went so far as to install a 4,000-gallon shark tank in their headquarters.”

Even the nonprofits are getting in on the action. A 2007 investigation into PHEAA, Pennsylvania’s state lending agency, revealed that executives of the nonprofit had used the income they gained from jacking up interest rates to 9.5% to reward themselves with luxuries like a $45,000 Learjet rental, spa treatments, limousine rides and falconry lessons. Yes, falconry lessons. Further inquiry revealed that PHEAA had been using a legal loophole to overbill the government, and therefore the taxpayers, for $15 million.

In that same year, an investigation led by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo revealed that the country’s largest lenders had made illegal arrangements with the loan officers at more than 100 colleges and universities across the country, including Johns Hopkins, Columbia and Syracuse. In exchange for lavish vacations and cash bribes, the officers agreed to put banks like JPMorgan Chase on their school’s list of “preferred lenders.”

And what has the government done to curb this rampant corruption? The late Ted Kennedy probably said it best when he addressed Congress in 2004. “A year ago, Senate Democrats proposed legislation to shut both [lending] loopholes down once and for all. The Senate Republicans did not act on that proposal, did not introduce their own legislation, and did not hold a single hearing. They asked no oversight questions of the Bush Administration. In short, they did nothing.”

Sallie the Jailer

The most disgusting part about the entire student loan crisis is that the agency created to keep student loans in check has done more than anyone else to guarantee that student debt remains a get-rich-quick scheme for industry executives. Founded in 1972, Sallie Mae is the government-sponsored enterprise tasked with backing, managing and collecting student debt. Since it was given that authority, it has systematically stripped student borrowers of every protection they have ever enjoyed.

In 1996, Sallie Mae led the charge to get student loans exempted from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In 1998, it worked with the Consumers Banking Union to lift the statute of limitations on student loans in an amendment to the Higher Education Act. Through these two acts, the heads of Sallie Mae guaranteed that student loans could never be charged off in bankruptcy and that they could never expire. Then, in 2003, Sallie Mae bragged to shareholders that it was able to increase its profit margins by 29% (compared to the previous year’s profits) thanks to the increased amount of debt money it was able to collect under the new legislation.

Under Sallie Mae’s guidance, student aid has become one of the most dangerous loans in the country. These days, when a student takes out a Sallie Mae-backed loan, they’re stepping into a scary financial labyrinth. No matter how old the loan is or how few assets a graduate has, they must still pay their debts – and if they don’t, they’ll be subjected to relentless harassment by debt collection agencies, not to mention lawsuits.

To compound the problem, the average default rate for student loans – 80% of which are backed by Sallie Mae – is 8.8% as of last September. In some states like Missouri, that number can be as high as 20%.

But if you ask any Sallie Mae employee, they’ll tell you things are just peachy. “The economy poses a significant challenge, but the overwhelming majority of our customers are successful in managing their obligations,” Spokesperon Patricia Christel told the Washington Post this March. “Only 3.5 percent of our private education loans default and no one benefits in that situation. That is why we work so diligently to reach customers and counsel them.”

The For-Profit Sham

But if Sallie Mae is bad, then for-profit colleges are worse. These schools – which include the Art Institutes, DeVry University and other online colleges – have been involved in numerous scandals over the past few years. Fueled by the renewed interest in trade careers, many for-profit colleges charge exorbitant fees in exchange for enrollment in career-specific classes. But often, a student can attend such classes through a local tech school for far less.

The for-profit industry has gotten so out of control that one former student loan executive said this to Congress: “In the trade school system, what you sell are dreams. If the student breathes, can write, and is over 18, he is qualified to become a student and to get a loan”.

Due to the low quality of the education that many students receive, the default rate on loans issued by for-profit colleges is disturbingly high. In an investigation into the industry, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) found that nearly half of all federal student loan defaults occur at for-profit colleges, even though these schools only enroll 10% of the higher-education student population. Currently, the default rate for all loans issued by for-profit schools is sitting at 15%, much higher than the national average.

A Bubble, or Something Worse?

Now that student debt is pushing $1 trillion, some experts like Robert Reich have begun to throw around the word “bubble” in their articles, likening student loans to the subprime mortgages that collapsed the housing market and triggered the recession in 2008. In many ways, it’s a fair comparison to make. College students are the ultimate subprime borrowers. They have limited, if any, credit history and very little experience with loans – and in many cases the amount of money they’re being handed by Sallie Mae and other lenders is on par with a mortgage. But could the bursting of a student loan bubble really be as catastrophic as the one that toppled the housing market?

Not quite. While some experts are sold on the idea of a bubble, just as many are convinced otherwise. According to For Student Power spokesman Patrick St. John, the structure of student loans inherently prevents them from exploding the way mortgages did in 2008. “The student loan bubble will not burst in the same way the housing market’s bubble burst,” he says. “Federal student loans are fully insured by the federal government, so if a student refuses or is unable to pay, the private loan provider is fully compensated. Because of this ‘built-in bailout’ there won’t be a crisis point like there was with housing.”

However, just because student loans might not be subject to a burst-bubble effect, that doesn’t make them any less problematic. The de-facto bailout that loan companies enjoy may keep the industry from collapsing, but it also makes overhauling the system that much harder – and for every day that passes without reform, our children’s future grows that much bleaker.

“We’re talking about a generation of young men and women who are losing hope of attaining anything close to what their parents have realized for themselves,” says Weiss. “This isn’t only economic in the form of diminished consumerism and the accumulation of wealth, it’s social. Take away the hope for a better tomorrow and the unrest that’ll ensue will, in my opinion, be no less convulsive than what my generation lived through in the late ’60s.”

Fox agrees. “As more people struggle with debt,” he says, “it will make the appeal of college less alluring. We already suffer from a lack of suitable individuals to fill positions. In the end, unchecked student loan debt will diminish our economic leadership position.”

To Forgive or Not to Forgive

Although awareness over an impending student loan crisis is at an all-time high, the debate continues to rage over the best way to fix it. The popular opinion seems to be that we should reinstate student debt forgiveness. Before Sallie Mae had its way with the legislation, the statue of limitations on student loans expired after seven years. They could also be forgiven through bankruptcy. At the moment, the legislators pushing hardest for loan reform believe that rebuilding these escape routes is the best way to ease the burden on America’s students and taxpayers.

Currently, Majority Whip Richard Durbin – creator of the Durbin amendment – is sponsoring legislation that would reinstate the borrower’s right to charge off private student loans in bankruptcy. Though the borrower would still have to pay their federal loans, the amendment would give distressed graduates a little more wiggle room than they currently enjoy. “The student debt crisis in this country is largely ignored by Congress,” he told Congress in a hearing. “There are a lot of lives that are being changed.”

However, some experts believe that Durbin isn’t taking reform far enough. Senator Hansen Clarke (D-MI) is working in conjunction with Student Loan Justice, a nonprofit organization, to push the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012. The act would allow people with student debt to be forgiven of it if they agree to pay 10% of their discretionary income for a period of 10 years. Furthermore, anyone who takes out student loans after the bill is passed would be eligible for the same deal, with a cap at $45,520 – the average cost of obtaining a four-year degree. Currently, an online petition supporting the bill has more than half a million signatures.

While the debate continues to rage over how much we should forgive student debt, Weiss says that there are plenty of ways that students can lessen their debt burden. These include testing out of as many courses as possible via CLEP and AP exams in order to reduce enrollment fees. Students can also start out at a community college and then transfer credits to a four-year university after two years. Another strategy is to take winter and summer sessions at schools that are less expensive.

Final Thoughts

The student loan crisis is every American’s problem, regardless of our political leanings. Our unyielding infatuation with the four-year college degree and an unchecked and unscrupulous lending industry have together created an abscess on our economy. Every year, student loans get more expensive. Every year, more and more college graduates are forced to default on their debt in the face of an uncertain job market. And every year, scores of retirees are reminded that no matter what they do, there is no escaping a student loan.

It’s a hard sell, since even loan forgiveness offers no guarantee that the buck won’t simply be passed on to the next generation. But the need for change – some change, any change – in the lending industry is no less dire. Something needs to be done, and both parties can agree on that. Regulations need to be tighter on for-profit colleges. We must place an emphasis on making accredited two-year schools just as attractive as traditional universities. Most of all, students need to be well-educated about college debt before they apply to school, not after they graduate from it. Anything at all to get us off this road to calamity we’re headed down.

Related post:

American Student Loan Debt: $1 Trillion and Counting

A “great haircut” for U.S. growth

Malaysia’s Education Setback

Hishammuddin Hussein, Malaysian Minister for E...

Hishammuddin Hussein, Malaysian Minister for Education. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We need to know where we truly are and accept that before we can move the education system forward.

THE experts tell us one thing about any programme of self-improvement. That includes the whole gamut of losing weight, improving self-confidence, widening your knowledge base, playing a better game of tennis, speaking well, aiming to win a gold medal at the Olympics, climbing Mount Everest, and, yes, to drastically improving the education system.

We must know our starting point.

If you want to lose weight, you must accept that you are overweight and chart a programme to reduce your weight over time. It’s a good idea to lose it healthily. You don’t want to lose too much or you may put it back in half the time that it took you to lose it.

You want a permanent solution to the problem. You want to take the weight off and keep it off through a re-education of your eating and lifestyle programme so that the changes that you institute are for life.

But before you choose a programme you need to know if it’s good for you, if you can follow its regimen, if it makes sense and if it is in line with all known scientific principles.

You have to be sure that it has a good chance of working and it does not make you worse off than you started with.

Choose the wrong programme and you wreck your body and physique forever and make it nearly impossible to reprogramme your body so that its metabolic rate does not always stay on starvation alert caused by your ill-considered move to go on a severe diet.

Changing the education system is similar to weight reduction, only enormously more complicated.

But you first have to admit that your education system needs changing. If you hang on to that mistaken, myopic belief that your education is better than those of most developed countries, you are sunk.

If you are 200 pounds and five foot three, there is no way you are not overweight even if you have tonnes of muscle!

The authorities now quote a study by Introspek Asia that in a survey of 1,800 Malaysian adults, 55% believed our education system to be comparable to other countries, without saying which countries.

And 35% believed education standards to be higher than developed countries, again without stating which countries.

The short and long of this is without much more detail, this survey amounts for little if anything, and if its methodology is right and defensible, we may even have to come to the unpalatable conclusion that Malaysians are a rather misinformed lot.

Let me put down here 10 clear symptoms that our education system is sick and needs a major overhaul to move forward.

It’s my hope that those responsible for coming with up with yet another major blueprint will take heed for I am sure many fellow Malaysians share the same sentiments. Here goes:

> By the end of Standard Six we still have whole classes unable to write their names. If the authorities don’t believe this, let them make a survey of the schools through the administration of a simple test — and use independent auditors and make the results public.

> The quality of teachers and schools has fallen steadily. This is reflected in the poor quality of those who leave school, many of whom can’t read and write in Bahasa Malaysia, let alone English.

> The quality of English has plummeted. Employers in the private sector where English is commonly used as the de facto language of choice, lament the poor English skills of even graduates educated in universities where English is the medium of instruction. Government flip-flops over English has only exacerbated the problem.

> It has become much easier to score A’s. The seemingly easy manner in which thousands score straight A’s in end-of-school exams has raised serious doubts over the integrity of the education system and whether our standards are set too low.

> We don’t have a proper system of vocational and technical training. We have a system which is academic based and does not provide enough vocational and technical training for those who may want and need it.

> We have a racially polarised school system partly largely because of falling standards. There was a time when most students of all races went to national schools simply because they were considered the best.

But Chinese schools are now seen to be much better with most Chinese enrolling their children there.

We have at least four, perhaps five, educational systems — national, national type Chinese and Tamil and religious schools. The fifth are private schools, both with international and Malaysian curricula.

> We produce thousands of unemployable graduates, especially from public universities. We moved a long time ago to quantity instead of quality.

> Qualifications from public universities are not as well recognised as before. Most people opt for non-public universities if they can afford it, a sad change from before when getting a place in Universiti Malaya was considered prestigious.

> We don’t have a top 100 university, and university standards have declined. While most Malaysian university qualifications were recognised worldwide at one time, that’s no longer the case.

> We continue to politicise education at the expense of students. Why do our politicians insist that our education is tops and then promptly send their children to private schools and overseas to educate them — in English?

For changes to take place, we must recognise where we are right now, we must get our bearings first.

Let’s open our eyes, absorb the unvarnished truth, seriously soul-search, and provide a real, deep, thinking education to young Malaysians without politics, propaganda and proselytising so that education is wholesome, complete and secular.

Comment by P. GUNASEGARAM

> Independent consultant and writer P. Gunasegaram likes this quote from Horace Mann: A human being is not attaining his full heights until he is educated.

Related posts:

Angry with the Malaysian education system in a mess 

Angers to the deception of Malaysian Chinese education 

Malaysian education heavily politicised, Quality  

PTPTN student loan, Bersih 3.0, ‘Occupy Dataran’ … 

To teach or to manage?

The Education Ministry should come up with guidelines that strictly define the role of teachers who are assigned to carry out administrative tasks and those who teach.

HAVE teachers not enough to teach that they are crying out to be “allowed to teach”? Or, have teachers been so drawn away from their teaching duty that they are pleading hard to “get (back) to teach”? Sadly, it is the latter that is of concern.

Teachers lament that they are not able to concentrate on their teaching because too many non-teaching activities and responsibilities are thrust upon them. There are the numerous analyses to do, reports to write, data to enter online, meetings, functions, seminars and workshops to attend. They also complain that they have co-curricular activities and games to manage and students to counsel.

Granted that some of these activities do have educational value that may indirectly contribute to classroom teaching effectiveness, teachers are not happy at the seemingly uncoordinated and inordinate manner by which they are called upon to be involved.

The contention is that much of the “paper work” teachers are required to do serve only the purposes of officials higher up. Teachers do not see any benefits to their charges at all.

With all these distractions, the committed teachers are worried sick that they may labour in vain in their classroom teaching; or they may themselves be burnt out. Others may already have thrown in the towel.

On the other hand, the less-than-responsible ones are enjoying the “outings” and “deviations” and unashamedly claiming that teaching is after all an “easy” life.

For the newly recruited teachers, this is indeed a confusing scenario!

There is indeed a case for the Ministry and education authorities to better coordinate and reassess the true needs of the paper work given to schools and expecting their feedback to be uploaded usually within short notice.

On the other hand, teachers must also recognise that some extracurricular activities are essential and therefore rightly become part of their duties.

Yet, with consent, approval and support from the authorities higher up, schools can do better. Here are my thoughts and suggestions.

A normal secondary day school with a student population of around 2,000 and running two sessions will have a principal, three senior assistants, an afternoon supervisor, four heads of academic departments, five student counsellors and a teaching staff of about 120.

This means that the school has 14 administrator-teachers, that is 12% of the staff.

Premier and other schools of acclaim may even have more academic and administrative staff. Smaller schools need no afternoon supervisors, have a proportionate number of counsellors whilst other positions are all intact.

These school administrators are called administrator-teachers because besides administering and managing their respective “office”, they are required to also teach some (10 to 14) periods a week. This may seem minimal as compared to a normal teacher’s load of 24 to 28 periods.

But, consider the minds of these administrator-teachers. Their first concern must be that they administer well the “office” they have been promoted and assigned to. They must also realise that what they do and decide now affect more than their own classes. They are helping to administer the whole school.

Their teaching periods may average two per day. But the timetable could be such that it is one period in the early half and the other period in the latter half of the day. Being conscientious and committed, they are teachers who want to perform well in their given tasks.

So, it is not just about going into classes for 40 minutes per period. There must also be necessary preparations to ensure that each lesson is enriching and benefiting to their charges.

Usually, they are torn between the demands of their administrative offices and the teaching needs of their classes. More often than not, our school structures and expectations being such, their administrative duties take precedence.

To accommodate, the more experienced administrator-teachers opt to teach “less important” subjects and classes.

This has resulted in their teaching becoming, much to their own chagrin, less than exemplary to their colleagues. Worse, there are some teachers who use the situation to justify their own lackadaisical demeanour.

This sad scenario begets the question: Why not allow administrator-teachers to be full-time administrators? They can then focus on the administrative tasks, take over the paper work now being assigned to teachers, “represent” teachers in many out-of-school activities and most importantly reduce the burden from teachers who are not “teaching-centric”.

After all, these administrator-teachers have to prove their administrative prowess rather than teaching for their next career move.

And, may I point out that former teachers who have taken on administrative positions in the ministry or the various education departments are not required to teach at all?

So why should teachers carrying out adminstrative work be expected to teach even if its just a few periods a week?

We really need a transformational change here. Would the Education Ministry allow schools to be administered by full-time administrators who were teachers before?

By LIONG KAM CHONG

Related posts

 Angry with the Malaysian education system in a mess

Education Doesn’t Increase Support for Affirmative

Britain universities in crisis

Universities in crisis as student numbers fall

Colleges that have offered most to poorer students will be biggest losers as impact of fees bites

London: More than 30 universities are facing a 10 per cent fall in student numbers this autumn, according to figures released today.

A breakdown of next year’s university budgets shows that middle-ranking universities and former polytechnics will suffer as a result of the new funding system, which will see tuition fees rise to up to £9,000 a year.

Worst hit, according to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, will be the University of East London and the University of Bedfordshire, which are likely to suffer falls of 12 per cent.

In all, 34 universities in England will have their student numbers cut by at least 10 per cent.

HEFCE estimates there will be 10,900 fewer student places across the country. Academics said it was universities who had done the most to open themselves up to disadvantaged groups that appeared to be suffering the worst cuts.

By contrast, most of the members of the Russell Group – which represents most of the country’s leading research institutions – are set to expand student numbers. Michael Driscoll, chairman of the million+ university think tank and vice-chancellor of Middlesex University, said the overwhelming majority of institutions were losing student places.

“These allocations show the true extent of the Coalition’s reform of fees and funding and the cutback in the overall number of university places being funded,” he said.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, added: “At a time when record numbers of people are out of work, the Government should be making it easier for people to access education.”

Although overall student numbers have been cut, under the new system universities can recruit beyond their fixed target so long as they take in students with at least two As and a B at A-level.

In addition, 20,000 places have been set aside for higher education providers charging less than £7,500 a year.

As a result, elite universities with a higher percentage of AAB students tend to benefit, as do further education colleges charging lower fees. An extra 65 such colleges are receiving funding for higher education degrees for the first time.

According to HEFCE, just over 10,000 of the 20,000 places for low charging universities have gone to further education colleges. The shake-up appears to have created a “squeezed middle” among universities, which are unlikely to recruit large numbers of AAB students but are still charging higher fees.

Sir Alan Langlands, chief executive of HEFCE, said he did not believe the changes would see universities “going into substantial financial problems”. “All of these can cope with this level of reduction,” he added. He said they were all “confident they can ride it out”. – The Independent

Related articles

Angry with the Malaysian education system in a mess

Be civil even when angry

ALONG THE WATCHTOWER By M. VEERA PANDIYAN

The ‘325 Rally’ organised by Dong Zong was touted as a peaceful gathering but it turned into an ugly show of anger.

IF civil dialogue is the life blood of demo­cracy, the fits of rage seen at the “325 Rally” organised by the United Chinese School Committees’ Association of Malaysia (Dong Zong) are indeed unfortunate.

What was touted as a peaceful gathering to highlight the serious shortage of Chinese vernacular school teachers turned into a show of anger, hardly reflective of the community’s cherished Confucian values.

Among the resolutions passed at the rally was a call to remove all newly-assigned non-Chinese-speaking teachers and those who did not have Chinese language qualifications – including Bahasa Malaysia and English teachers – from Chinese schools.

Dong Zong also wants teachers with the right qualifications, who had earlier been transferred out, to return to these schools.

The other demands include a review of the Education Act to ensure plurality in the country’s education policy, fair treatment for vernacular schools and safeguarding their existence and development.

The Chinese educationists also want the ministry to conduct training for teachers with Chinese language qualifications who had been teaching Malay and English at Chinese primary schools for at least three years.

But of course, the resolutions have now been obscured by the verbal abuse and near-assault of Deputy Education Minister Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong.

Although the deputy minister has been accused of “gate crashing” the event, the organisers of the rally had indeed issued an open invitation to him to attend.

Through advertisements in the Chinese newspapers, they had also listed 13 prohibitions for those coming to the rally – behaving violently or acting against the principles of peace, being abusive, provocation or making any indecent moves, carrying weapons and such.

But with the loss of almost all civility in our political discourse, we can only expect frenzied partisan views, especially in cyberspace where emotions are stoked daily into seething froth.

The reality is there are no quick fix solutions for the teacher shortage problem facing Chinese as well as Tamil schools.

Dong Zong president Yap Sin Tian said at the rally that the problem had remained unresolved for tens of decades, accusing the Govern­ment of having a lack of will to resolve it.

Here’s a sense of déjà vu. It’s been 25 years but nothing seems to have changed on the problems facing Chinese schools – except for the main players changing roles and shifting allegiances.

Just like the “325 Rally” in Kajang, a huge gathering took place at the Thean Hou Temple in Kuala Lumpur in 1987 to protest against the Education Ministry.

The Dong Zong is now said to be aligned with DAP and its Pakatan Rakyat allies of PKR and PAS but in 1987, Barisan Nasional’s Chinese-based parties – MCA and Gerakan – as well as DAP joined the Chinese educationists in calling for a boycott of the schools involved.

Guess who was the much-despised Education Minister accused of “deliberately” attempting to undermine the educational standards of Chinese schools? The fast-rising Umno leader then was none other than the current leader of Pakatan.

There is no denying that our education system is in a mess, no thanks to the flaws in implementation. We need to rectify the shortcomings both in national and vernacular schools as well as institutions of higher learning.

But not much can be done if sentiments are always tied to political posturing or show of power, with complete absence of civility in discussions.

Before the rally, discussions were already being held between Dong Zong, Jiaozong (the United Chinese School Teachers Association of Malaysia), Huazong (the Federation of Chinese Associations Malaysia), NUTP (the National Union of the Teaching Profession) and SJKC Headmasters Union and a special committee on shortage of teachers in Chinese schools, chaired by Dr Wee.

The deputy minister also announced eight long- and short-term measures to address the problem, including transferring out the non-qualified teachers, enabling Chinese school headmasters to hire temporary teachers and training of more teachers with Chinese qualification.

During his live interview over 98.8FM, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak confirmed that the steps had been accepted in principle by the Cabinet, and that the Government was serious about resolving the matter once and for all. But the assurances were snubbed by Dong Zong as “hasty and expedient attempts” to merely counteract the rally.

Now that the protest rally is over and the demands made, the right thing for Dong Zong to do is to go back to the discussion table. Civil discourse is the right path to take, no matter how angry one is.

> Associate Editor M. Veera Pandiyan likes these wise words of Confucious: The gentleman is calm and peaceful; the small man is always emotional. Without feelings of respect, what is there to distinguish men from beasts?

Related post:

Angers to the deception of Malaysian Chinese education

Angers to the deception of Malaysian Chinese education

Chinese education problems: Real solutions needed

Pauline Wong
newsdesk@thesundaily.com

KAJANG (March 25, 2012): The anger and frustration of Chinese educationists and the community over the decades-old problems faced by Chinese schools boiled over today.

This was manifested in the treatment meted out to Deputy Education Minister Datuk Wee Ka Siong when he attended a rally organised by the United Chinese School Committees Association (Dong Zong) here.

Wee was not only heckled and jeered by a rowdy crowd of over 7,000 people at the New Era College where the rally was held, but someone even managed to throw a punch at him as he was leaving the event.

Fortunately, due to the cordon of police personnel around him, the full force of the punch was deflected and Wee only suffered a glancing blow on his left cheek.

Despite the incident, Wee was seemingly calm when he spoke to reporters at a press conference later, saying he was saddened by the way the crowd had become emotional.

“While we do not expect cheers or applause from them (the crowd), the whole purpose of attending this rally is to listen to the people,” said Wee, who believed the crowd was made up of mostly opposition supporters.

Earlier, on his arrival about 11am, Wee had been met by a ‘hostile’ crowd and had to be protected by about 20 uniformed police and Rela personnel who formed a human wall around him.

Even after he had sat down, Wee was booed at every time the Education Ministry was mentioned in the speech by Dong Zong president president Yap Sin Tian who lashed out at the ministry for failing to solve the problems which have festered for over 40 years.

Among them, the lack of teachers in Chinese primary schools, which has been a sore point among its educationists for many years, made worse by the government placing non-Chinese speaking teachers as stop-gap measures.

Yap said as far back as 1968, the Education Ministry was on record in Parliament as admitting that Chinese schools faced a shortage of 1,172 teachers.

“This problem has never been resolved and remained the same for over 40 years. Over the years, many senior officials continue to say that the shortage would be resolved, but nothing has materialised,” he said.

“The Education Ministry today continues to say it needs to gather information about the problem before anything can be done, but the fact is, the ministry is in possession of the most up-to-date and complete information.

“Therefore, it can be concluded that the ministry does not intend to settle the problem, not because of the lack of ability, but the lack of will,” Yap said.

The rally later passed four resolutions presented by the Dong Zong standing committee.

They are, for the Education Ministry to:

  • immediately transfer out all teachers who do not have the required SPM Chinese language qualification from Chinese primary schools;
  • conduct special courses for Chinese language teachers who have taught Bahasa Malaysia or English for at least three years so that they are qualified to teach all three languages;
  • reform the teachers training syllabus so that more qualified Chinese-speaking teachers can be trained to fulfil needs of Chinese schools;and
  • review the Education Act to ensure vernacular schools are accorded equal status and safeguarded as an integral part of national education system.

Responding to Dong Zong’s demands, Wee said the ministry would continue to work towards resolving the issues raised.

However, he was evasive when pressed as to whether the government would give a commitment to resolve the problems or concede to the demands of the Dong Zong.

“We will most certainly take into consideration anything, listen to whatever grievances which we think are rational,” he said, adding that was why the cabinet had agreed to set up a special committee, which he chairs, to resolve the problem.

“The committee will get the cooperation of all stakeholders. Over the past month, we have engaged stakeholders to resolve this issue. We will study each of their resolutions and demands and consider it. We have come up with strategies,” he said.

When it was pointed out that Chinese educationists have been faced with this problem for over four decades and will not accept any more delays, Wee reiterated that the committee was formed to look into it immediately.

“Of course, we know this needs immediate attention. As far as government is concerned, we need to identify the root of the problem before we can solve anything.

“Transferring the non-Chinese speaking teachers out will not solve anything. There are integrated issues which have to be resolved and discussed as a whole, not piecemeal,” he added.

Related posts:

English language in Malaysia in dire straits!

Malaysia needs more engineers

 The experts: Dr Goh (left) with Kim Hor giving their talk on engineering at The Star Education Fair 2012 at Penang International Sports Arena.

THE country needs at least 200,000 engineers by 2020 in order to attain the status of a developed nation.

Institute of Engineers, Malaysia (Penang Branch) immediate past chairman Prof Datuk Dr Eric Goh said there were now only 70,000 registered engineers in Malaysia.

Dr Goh was speaking at a talk on Engineering held on the final day of The Star Education Fair 2012.

The institute’s electronic engineering technical division advisor Dr Tan Kim Hor who spoke during the second half of the talk said the engineering profession had great prospects as it was now high in demand.

In a talk about law, barrister-at-law Mureli Navaratnam said that although the country had sufficient supply of practitioners, there was a need for specialists in the field of arbitration and shipping law.

At a talk on medicine, consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist Dr K. Suresh said a medical career means lifelong learning while his co-speaker Dr S. Bina Rai stressed on the importance of doing proper research before choosing medical schools.

Another co-speaker Dr Tan Kok Joo said one must think carefully before deciding to take up medical courses.

Stories by WINNIE YEOH, KOW KWAN YEE, HAFIZ MARZUKHI, JEREMY TAN, KIATISAK CHUA and ROYCE TAN
Photos by NG AH BAK, GOH GAIK LEE, CHIN CHENG YEANG, LIM BENG TATT, CHAN BOON KAI and ZHAFARAN NASIB

Soaring high: A large replica of an aeroplane set up above Advanced Tourism International College’s booths at the Star Education Fair 2012 which concluded yesterday at the Penang International Sports Arena.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 95 other followers