If we seek an educated mass, it begins at an educated individual. And making sure they get out ahead of where they came in at that. But the system in place now is failing us; it’s failing our current students, inhibiting our prospective students and already hitting students who have graduated. 

Congress’ inaction on the issue of student loan interest rates and consequent student debt has been fairly consistent. Last year, student groups and the Obama administration pushed for a one-year delay, as opposed to passing a piece of legislation, that prevented interest rates on federally subsidized student loans from increasing to 6.8 percent from 3.4 percent. Come July 1, Congress effectively paralleled its past stagnancy on the issue by failing to reach a bipartisan agreement and allowing those student interest rates to double back to 6.8 percent.

Short-term fixes have clearly outgrown their usefulness and effectiveness. At the University, the average student debt was $24,657 for 2012 graduates and $22,975 for 2011 graduates. While a 7 percent increase in student debt may appear negligible, those numbers will inevitably rise year after year if proposals aren’t made and acted upon. The goal is for students to obtain higher education without accumulating debt, let alone to graduate with a year’s tuition worth of debt.

Last Wednesday, U.S. senators agreed to a long-term, bipartisan compromise bill that would tie new student loan interest rates to the market, or more specifically, the 10-year Treasury bond, a form of government debt security with a fixed interest rate. Each loan will use the Treasury rate as a base, adding another 1.8 percentage points for undergraduate students, 3.4 for graduate students and 4.5 for loans taken out through the PLUS program. Regardless of how high interest rates may reach in the future, rates would be capped at 8.25 percent for undergraduates and 9.25 percent for students utilizing any other type of loan.

However, categorizing education as just another commodity presents new challenges. Just as there is variability within the market, the loan program would see similar variability: If the market is doing well, so will the loan program, and vice versa. Basing student loan rates off a constantly fluctuating market proves an interesting plan for a country that prides itself in and flourishes from its education system and educated population.

On the contrary, displacing the control of student loan interest rates from the government to the market presents benefits too. Often, students and parents have been encouraged to take out loans because of the increased accessibility to money through these loan programs, not realizing that colleges are increasing their costs against a slower-rising inflation rate. Essentially, the goal is to implement market discipline into the student loan program. With the two intertwined, the hope is that current and prospective students will be more rational about borrowing money and college inflation will decrease. 

Higher education is becoming increasingly valuable and even necessary as students seek higher paying jobs, professional degrees and the abilities to succeed in a competitive economy. Nearly 66 percent of 2012 high school graduates went on to attend college — we can’t encourage them to continue their educations, just to set them financially behind once they graduate. Otherwise, we have a phenomenon of graduates who lack the financial resources to stimulate the economy and the burning question of whether higher education is worth the price tag anymore.

Congress’ temporary solutions aren’t addressing a long-term problem; it’s using the widespread availability of student loans to push students through education’s most valuable institution while having no regard for them come graduation.