Laziest Argument Online Right Now

I shouldn't be blogging.

I am trying to finish my dissertation this year, and it will require a lot of my focus.

But I could not resist. I just read the laziest argument I've encountered in years.

Christopher Denhart posted this on Forbes.com today, and I am shocked at how little respect he has for his readers.

Denhart presents his criticism of Germany's decision to stop charging students for tuition at university.

His argument rests on a few major points:

• Germany's taxes are already too high
• Systems that have students pay tuition help control the costs of education
• There aren't enough jobs for college grads (in America)

So, German taxes are high... Sorry, but complaining about tax rates in Germany isn't a very smart move if you're looking to make the case for lower taxes elsewhere. We're talking about an EU country where unemployment is at 5.1% and the economy is a global superstar. 

Denhart goes on to assert that when students foot the bill, that helps control costs at universities. That's just a stupid thing to say. Even if I try to accept his argument that federal loans caused the spike in US tuition, the fact remains, tuition has increased steadily as public support for higher ed has decreased. Everyone knows this. And if you need evidence for the advantages of public support, look to the rise of the University of California, a system that came to global prominence while charging no tuition. 

Finally, Denhart trys to use the unemployment situation in the US to suggest that maybe it would be better for Germany to have fewer graduates. Which is interesting if you're able to ignore the facts that Germany doesn't have the same unemployment situation as the US, that the German economy depends on high-skilled workers, and that unemployment for US workers is worse for those without a degree than it is for those who have one. 

I mean, this argument is so bad - like the "so bad it's good" kind of bad.

It is a bunch of talking points from the fiscal conservative playbook (which isn't all bad) pounded in the most ham-fisted of ways into a statement about funding higher education.

And here's why I couldn't resist writing about it: We need to reassess the way we fund higher education in the US. We do. The current system is broken, and this joker Denhart is trying to argue against that. He's arguing that we're doing it right. Well, not quite. We would be doing it right if only we removed more public support from the system. 

And he's doing it by making statements that sound smart until you start thinking about them. 

I know of strong counter arguments to what Denhart has put forward here. I actually know some good arguments in favor of what he's trying to say. But that's not what I wanted to post about. 

I just wanted to point to a lazy argument that is part of an important policy debate in our country and say this: Lazy arguments find readers, and some of those readers will feel informed by those lazy arguments.

When a person says, "I read this in Forbes," it sounds like they know a thing or two. 

In the interest of constructive public discourse, even the people who agree with Denhart should be upset that this got published in Forbes. It's embarrassing.