Mediaboss Marketing

When I was the same age my kids are now, I was a giant Carl Sagan fan. Cosmos had begun airing on PBS, and for my birthday there was just one thing I wanted: a $50 donation to the Buffalo PBS affiliate. That was the only way to get the not-available-in-any-store (especially not a Canadian store) Cosmos companion book featuring lots of photos of Cornells least modest professor of astronomy and space sciences. My friends got Gretzky jerseys so they could skate like stars, but this nerd wanted Cosmos because were all star stuff (especially Carl).

For me, the most electrifying part of Cosmos -- the highest-rated show in public television history until Ken Burns came along -- was Sagans exposition of the Drake equation, which estimates the number of detectable technical extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way via seven discrete factors. The answer, Sagan expounded, could be in the millions, which raises a question: Shouldnt some of them have voyaged to earth?

As evidenced by increased UFO sightings around the time of Cosmos, many people thought they had. Lots still do. A 2019 poll found about a quarter of Americans believe aliens have visited the U.S. and the government is keeping it a secret. But with President Trump out of office for a month and continued silence on this conspiracy, we now have Sagan-caliber proof that the U.S. government has no such evidence. For if it did, Trump would have surely spilled the beans by now in an incoherent, attention-seeking fit of pique.

Sagan even had a signature phrase, not from Cosmos, but rather Johnny Carsons Cosmos parody: Billions and billions (overemphasizing the B). It was nonetheless richly deserved given the many, many times he used large numbers to make us all feel small. Sagans celebrity was well worn by Cornell, which featured him prominently in promotional materials, suggesting students would have frequent contact with Americas most telegenic scientist. Naturally, Sagan only taught one seminar each year, prompting the Cornell Review to launch an I touched Carl Sagan contest; students who had physical contact could win a prize by submitting essays on their experience.

Cornell tuition may not be in the billions and billions, but its galactically higher than when Cosmos first aired. In 1980, annual tuition at Cornell was $4,090. This year, students paid $59,331: nearly five times, adjusted for inflation. In endlessly increasing tuition far above the rate of inflation, Cornell is in good company. The predictable results are the progressive free college and student debt forgiveness movements that dominate higher education policy discourse as the Biden administration takes flight.

But one major critique of so-called free college is that it wouldnt actually be free. Students need to live while theyre studying. Rent, food and other expenses range from 30percent of total student budgets at schools like Cornell to 60percent at state universities and 80percent at community colleges. Since the Great Recession, these costs have been rising just as fast as tuition. Cornell now charges $15,706 for room and board for its 235-day academic calendar, and has students budget an additional $3,000 for books and living expenses.

Thanks to the former conspiracist in chief, Democrats dominate Americas political scene and will for the foreseeable future. But while President and Dr. Biden promote free community college, students still need to be able to afford to live while they learn. That means more of the same borrowing that has led to progressives putting pressure on the administration to forgive student debt. One solution is earn-while-you-learn models. Paying students a living wage while they learn is the best way to address cost of living and truly level the playing field for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

You wont be surprised to learn theres a federal program for this. Its called Federal Work-Study (FWS), and each year 3,400 colleges and universities receive $1.2billion in wage subsidies to employ about 700,000 students. So its surprising that neither FWS nor any other earn-while-you-learn model (e.g., apprenticeships) shows up on the list of progressive policy priorities. Elizabeth Warrens campaign platform didnt mention FWS, and President Bidens platform references FWS only in the context of reforming the program. Progressives should be all over FWS and other earn-while-you-learn models. But theyre not, and Im wondering why.

***

Earn-while-you-learn programs are popping up more frequently than Carl Sagan on the Cornell campus. Launched last fall with CARES Act funding, the Digital Upskill Sacramento Program pays students from disadvantaged communities $600 per week to participate in free last-mile training. Students are given a laptop and trained for data analytics or software support roles. Said one participant who gave birth days before the start of training, Not having to use my credit card to pay for groceries, because I had the money, that was amazing. I didnt have a reason not to go forward, because they provided me with tools to go forward. In November, San Antonio voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to allocate sales tax proceeds to workforce development, and programs like Project Quest are now paying students $15 per hour for short-term training.

Of course, earn-while-you-learn is more realistic for short workforce development programs than paying students for years as they pursue degrees. But as federal workforce development funding pales in comparison with government support for colleges and universities, paying wages for job training is still not a layup. For every $100 spent on accredited higher education, only $1 is spent on job training, spread across 43 uncoordinated programs. Public support for apprenticeships works out to less than $100 per apprentice each year and is a fraction of what other developed nations spend. The proposed $1.9trillion COVID relief plan includes billions and billions more for colleges and universities ($35billion to be exact), but no additional funding for workforce development or apprenticeships. Just as Cornell collegians were kept clear of Sagan, its as though grubby job training must be segregated from the big money of TitleIV of the Higher Education Act.

At current spending levels, federal workforce funds only flow to a million Americans each year, and there are only about half a million apprentices (with little government support). So moving the needle with earn-while-you-learn means reaching the 20million students enrolled at colleges and universities, specifically in multiyear degree programs. But a new program on the scale of free college would require a massive expansion of Federal Work-Study, which could be hard, seeing as colleges and universities dont need thousands of student dining hall workers and custodians -- not this year, and not any year.

Unfortunately, thats how FWS works. The current structure incentivizes colleges and universities to employ students to wash dishes and clean toilets rather than connect them with private sector jobs. The FWS handbook provides a 75percent wage subsidy for any on-campus job but only 50percent for off-campus jobs with private for-profit organizations. FWS also disincentivizes private sector employment in two other ways: (1) by requiring that private sector jobs must be relevant to your course of study and (2) by limiting schools from using more than 25percent of FWS funding to subsidize private sector employment. Not surprisingly, 92percent of FWS funds are used for on-campus jobs. The rest goes to off-campus jobs at not-for-profit or community services organizations. Less than 0.1percent subsidizes work at private for-profit organizations. This warped structure has come into focus via COVID as tens of thousands of students who might have been able to perform subsidized private sector work remotely have had campus jobs canceled, resulting in hardship and dropouts.

In non-pandemic years, washing dishes and cleaning toilets may help support 700,000 students through college, but its not scalable and much less likely to help launch careers than relevant work experience. Of the approximately 150million jobs in the U.S., less than 25percent -- approximately 36million -- are in the public and nonprofit sectors. Over 75percent of jobs are in the private sector. And its private sector employers that have become much pickier in job descriptions for entry-level positions, increasingly listing digital and business skill requirements that realistically are only obtained through relevant work experience. This explains why less than a third of students are confident theyll get a good job after graduation. So if were serious about not only solving the short-term problem of paying for college, but also the long-term problem of socioeconomic mobility, expanding earn-while-you-learn to colleges and universities means deeper and more sustained engagement with the private sector.

This is where progressives get nervous. It may be an unconscious block. After all, how may progressive leaders -- public officials and policy makers -- have worked outside government, think tanks, foundations and universities? Looking at the Biden administrations 24 appointees to the U.S. Department of Education, only six have held private sector jobs. Three are counsel who trained at law firms. The other three average 2.5 years in private sector jobs in careers than span decades. Fully 18 of the 24 have never worked in the private sector since graduating from college. Come to think of it, this may also explain other federal higher education policies that are skewed against private sector employment.

By now, it may also be a reflex. For too many years, progressive leaders have characterized for-profit companies as predatory and maligned the motivations of private sector actors as unethical rent seeking rather than serving customers, growth and building value for shareholders. In many ways, its hard to blame them. After all, the constituents progressives try hardest to protect are front-line workers in dead-end jobs and at-risk Americans who have been victimized by bad actors in pharmaceuticals, financial services and -- yes -- postsecondary education (creating a natural aversion to short-term job training from private sector providers).

Even more than their forebearers of a century ago, progressives take a dim view of private sector employers and employment. This allergy to private sector employment may also explain why progressives arent counting on unions to close the education-to-employment gap. For while many private sector unions -- particularly in the building and construction trades -- run earn-while-you-learn apprenticeships, public sector unions do virtually nothing. Progressives arent sure how they feel about career trajectories outside government and nonprofits. That's their Achilles heel, and thats why were not hearing more about earn-while-you-learn.

***

There is a place where the best-educated and most highly skilled members of the work force are in government-controlled jobs. Unfortunately for progressives, Im quoting last weeks New York Times report on Cuba. If progressives want New Deal-level investment for education and employment, the current political configuration isnt likely to yield a Depression-era government-funded, government-run WPA or NYA (National Youth Administration). Theyll need to embrace the private sector.

If they can, the opportunity is huge. If theres any area where progressives can find common ground with moderates and conservatives, its here. A grand earn-while-you-learn bargain could incorporate not only FWS, but also apprenticeships, public-funded internships and work-integrated learning. Theres broad public support for spending on solving unemployment and underemployment. A recent Rutgers University survey found 74percent of Americans support spending more money on job training for laid-off workers. To paraphrase FDR, the only thing we have to fear is fear of the private sector itself.

Right before he passed away in 1996, Carl Sagan appeared on Charlie Rose and warned America might be up for grabs for the next charlatan political or religious who comes ambling along. Sagan's fear was lack of scientific literacy, which has never been clearer than it is now (see e.g., COVID pandemic). But he might also have been talking about economic opportunity. If the American dream is dead -- if there arent clear pathways for our children to do better than we did -- maybe its worth selecting conspiracy-spinning leaders for sheer entertainment value.

Sagan believed were not alone in the universe. And although he was progressive for his time -- working at universities and nonprofits like PBS, combating nuclear proliferation -- I bet he also understood that the public and nonprofit sectors arent alone, either: theres a universe of companies and employers out there, not all of which mean harm to customers and employees. And that a quest for economic development that disregards the private sector is likely to yield something like Cuba.

If progressives are going to play a constructive role in rekindling the American dream, theyll need to overcome private sector phobia and understand that connections from publicly funded education to privately funded employment arent inherently perilous like the Bridge of Death in Monty Pythons Holy Grail. Short of creating tens of millions of new jobs at the Department of Education, failing to make peace with the private sector (aka the United States economy) will damn Gen Z to a rinse-and-repeat doom loop of underemployment and student debt forgiveness. And the fault won't be in our stars -- or aliens or Trump or Fidel Castro -- but in ourselves.

Go here to read the rest:
Progressives should focus more on work-study and other earn-while-you-learn models (opinion) - Inside Higher Ed