Chocolate milk

Before I move on to Black directors, writing about schools made me think about something Hillary Clinton said to Howard Stern that drew some ire.

For a little bit of context, I recently finished The Destruction of Hillary Clinton by Susan Bordo. There wasn't a lot new there - I was paying attention during the time period she covered - but it was a strong reminder that people misquote Clinton and take her out of context and willfully misunderstand her a lot.

In addition, I had recently read a bit on Clinton where the headlines were all about her naming Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian plant, but she never named Gabbard and she said it was Republicans - not Russians - doing the grooming. Russians came up, and Gabbard clearly felt it was her, but what was reported was not what was said. I suppose some of it could be difficulty for many in parsing complex thoughts, but it's hard to feel like the desire is even there. And yet, sometimes we need to be able to understand complex things.

In talking about Bernie Sanders, Stern referenced Bernie's tendency to one-up during conversations and criticize practical concerns. Stern compared it to a run for class presidency in grade school, to which Clinton replied "Chocolate milk for everyone!", followed by a quip about more recess.

That was pretty mild, fit in context, and related to a behavior Sanders had really demonstrated, but I saw a few "Wow!"s and "I can't believe it!"s at the audacity, in addition to a snarky "actually, there should be milk in schools".

And that's exactly how it worked with Sanders: she would bring up a potential issue and he would be like "Don't you want free college?"

In this post I wish to torture this metaphor to its logical conclusion, and then get to free college.

First of all, there is milk in schools; qualifying it as chocolate makes it more of a treat, hence the allure of that particular campaign promise.

(To be fair, at my grade school, milk came with every hot lunch, and you could choose whether you wanted white or chocolate without any trouble.)

Here's the thing: some people are allergic to chocolate. Some don't like it. Perhaps more important, an estimated 65% of the world's population is lactose intolerant.

That is more common with people of color, so one of the weird things that we get with today's political climate is a fringe association of milk as wholesome, pure, and white. That is without getting into issues with hormones or ethical treatment of dairy cows; I can't even imagine how complicated it must get to plan school lunch menus now, but that is beside the point. Chocolate milk for all sounds fun, but it might not work for everyone in the school. Acknowledging that does not mean that you hate children, or don't care if they starve, or that you don't think government should play a role.

Now about free college...

Let's dispense with the people who are against it because they paid off their college loans on their own right now. I paid off my loan within a few years of graduating. I could do that because it was only around $6000, and it did in fact put me in a much better position for job hunting.

Getting more specific, I had not qualified for any helpful financial aid until my senior year, when my parents' incomes were no longer used against me and when I had not made any money for a year and a half on my mission. That's how hard it was to get aid despite needing it.

I had previously alternated working full-time to save up for school, and also working while going to school after I had saved up some. During that time period (1991 to 1996) the cost of tuition rose from I think $600 per quarter to $1800. I wasn't thrilled to only get a loan instead of a grant, but worrying about more tuition increases made it worth taking on the debt. (Also, really wanting to be done with school.)

Yes, tuition continued to rise. A lot. The power of a degree in terms of getting a good job has gone in the opposite direction. Wages have certainly not risen the same way tuition costs have. That has caused some people to downgrade the value of a college education, but it offers many things that are enriching for a person in higher education and necessary for some jobs that society needs.


Plus there's this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/12/02/student-loan-forgiveness-devos/#2de6e4107f9b

I wonder if breaking promises to people who have contributed to public service correlates at all to the attitude that if you have suffered at all other people should definitely suffer more.

Looking at those factors, one can see a clear value in free tuition and state schools, but is that enough?

First of all, tuition is not the only cost of education. There are living expenses. Today it can be a struggle to survive on one job; having a full-time job is not great for also getting through school.

Maybe you have a good university near your home, and supportive parents who will continue to provide room and board for the duration; those allowances are not guaranteed. Those financial aid forms that say how much your parents should contribute? shockingly ineffective in making your parents contribute that amount, even if they can.

In addition, text book costs can be terrible. Some professors make that worse by making their own books required texts, and requiring new editions so you can't buy used. That is a problem, but some of them do it because they are terribly underpaid, and may well still have debt from their required education. There is a web of problems there, just on the topic of money alone, but money is not the only issue.

There is also getting accepted into college and being ready for college. If your family does not have a tradition of higher education, it can be much harder to know what classes to take and how to be prepared. That is not strictly a matter of income, but money figures because K-12 schools being well-funded enough to meet the needs of their students plays a role. It is still more than that. Maybe things have gotten better, but my guidance counselors were really incompetent. There were things I could have done to increase my chances of scholarships that I did not learn until much later. Yes, if state schools have free tuition, that doesn't matter as much, but we don't want to forget the needs of students who want to go to private schools too. Hold that thought.

My school did do a good job of letting me know things like what college entrance exams to take, but those tests cost money. Application fees to get into colleges cost money. Sometimes quite a bit.

What I am trying to get at here is that what free tuition does is make things easier for kids who would probably go to college anyway. That's not bad, but does it make things that much better ?

There is one more important point; although attending elite schools doesn't seem to make a large difference on the lifelong earning potential of students from wealthy backgrounds, it can make a huge difference to students from poor backgrounds, especially minority students. Attending an elite school opens up new networking opportunities for people who have been previously unconnected.

Allowing already college-bound students to graduate debt-free is great for them, but it ultimately reinforces the existing class structure. It doesn't help students who could do well in college but do not know how to get there. It doesn't help people meet each other across different races and classes. (Hey, it's another aspect of segregation!)


Previously campaigns focused on the middle class, and a thriving middle class was seen as the ultimate goal, because then all would be well. That has shifted now to an emphasis on the working class, probably because a lot of us with middle class pretensions have backslid.

I'm fine with that. I think it would be an improvement if it dealt meaningfully with race and gender and all of those factors that some candidates just can seem to handle.