On “We’ve Always Been Deadbeats,” by Scott Reynolds Nelson (The Chronicle Review, September 14), from chronicle.com:
Not all educational pundits would suggest that 2008 was the beginning of the big problem of student borrowing. We seem to have forgotten the 1985 report “Mortgaging a Generation,” by the California Postsecondary Education Commission; or the 1986 book Mortgaged Futures, by Marguerite Dennis; or Ted Marchese’s statement in the May/June 1986 issue of Change magazine (“We’ve said to young people, if you want an education, here’s a loan, pay for it yourself”); or Frank Newman’s statement in his 1986 “Higher Education and the American Resurgence” (“The rapidly increasing dependence on loans as a means of financing students is alarming and must end”); or the 1987 College Board report “Student Loans: Are They Overburdening a Generation?”; or the 1993 Final Report of the National Commission on Responsibilities for Financing Postsecondary Education titled “Making College Affordable Again.” As Nelson points out, borrowing and not repaying is an old problem.
bbaylis
Wonderful article, not just for the points made, but for the memories. In the early 1970s, my mother, newly separated from my father, got her first postmarriage job as a door-to-door bill collector. She did not look the part (5 feet 4 inches, 110 pounds, platinum-blond beehive, miniskirt, and heels, anyone?), but she was pretty successful in leaving with at least a partial payment on the loans. Ironically, while she would occasionally speak disparagingly about her clients, she was terrible with money herself. She ended up in bankruptcy when her health went south. It was definitely a case of “do what I say” instead of “do what I do,” and another example of the “debt crisis” being nothing new.
graddirector
On “The Templeton Effect,” by Nathan Schneider (The Chronicle Review, September 7), from chronicle.com:
Whatever the motive of Templeton himself, the foundation is spending money to proselytize Christianity with a false sophistication of philosophic inquiry. The basic questions that the foundation funds—free will, the existence of the supernatural, etc.—are unanswerable unless nonscientific, nonrational epistemology is given standing. The Templeton Foundation is prominent in the longstanding (and perhaps increasing) appetite of Americans for the romantic, the gnomic, and the superstitious in sustaining the ethnocentricity of the nation’s exceptionalism. It promotes a characteristic democratic populism at war with democratic progressivism.
wepstein
Templeton is going to distort philosophy. The money is just too big to not warp discourse in this impoverished field. The implicit message is obvious: You must express sympathy for, or at least keep silent about, religion in order to get these huge grants.
cdelance
On “When We Kill Our Pets,” by Jessica Pierce (The Chronicle Review, September 14), from chronicle.com:
I am a veterinarian with a Ph.D. who is heavily involved in teaching both veterinary and medical students. It is wonderful to be part of two distinguished professions that practice “one medicine” with different patient populations. Of course, the “one medicine” concept must include the fact that there are, in fact, many differences. This article highlights the psychological and moral similarities of the two professions.
I have long said that “in veterinary medicine, real people pay real bills.” There are real costs to taking care of animals, and the people providing this care deserve their recompense. We are isolated from the true cost of medical care we humans receive in most instances and are, therefore, spared some responsibility for making decisions based on cost. Too many of us have the attitude of “do what it takes.” Someone, somewhere, is paying the cost. This is a really tough question for our society: How do we equitably and morally pay for our health care, and how much is too much?
coppocg
One reason I might be quicker to euthanize a pet at the end of life (rather than opt for treatment) is that the pet does not understand the aim of treatment. From its point of view, can painful treatment be any different from torture? Humans can make these decisions with informed consent; pets can only trust us to be kind.
Cal Frye