Two New Meeting Videos!

Hipsternomics:

Labor Theory of Value:

Sadly, our Bitcoin/Silver meeting video did not film correctly due to an insufficient battery issue.  This meeting may be repeated in the future, however, due to the topic being fairly important and popular and lack of attendance last week.

Tyler Frazier on the Case Against Foreign Intervention

Follow parts 1-4 from the video below!

Stacy Litz on the Economics of Self Ownership

Here is the presentation from last week:

Tyler’s will be up later today!

Peter Schiff Speaking at Temple Video FINALLY Up!

Here is part 1/5, you can follow the rest through YouTube!

Sorry it took forever to get up, but I finally found a non-corrupted YouTube Video Splitter and Uploader software to download. Amazing!

Anyway, check it out:

Annual Allocations Update

All,

There is some bad news this year for SLF allocations, although it may pave way for a new kind of funding for our organization — one that takes our principles of private options into account.

This year, annual allocations through Drexel University’s SAFAC system were done online, through a service called Collegiate Link.  A week before they were due, I received 27 emails, all at once, into my Gmail account, announcing the due date, which seemed like a glitch that happened in the system.  As an executive board, we discussed when we should meet to work on the form, but our time schedules did not end up working out to determine a meeting time.

I filled out the form referencing our allocations from last year on my own, thinking that I could use it as an appendix and fill out the form with the same details — I even included a paragraph that explained that our allocations from last year were perfect and we would be very happy with having the same again this year, since our events are generally the same year-to-year.

Also, we thought there was another chance to fix our allocations, as there was last year, through the appeals process.  Basically, if your funding has issues of any sort, you can resubmit your request within a week or so after you receive your funding letter, which ensures there are no problems.  This appeal process is still listed on the SAFAC website, too, although the dates are wrong.

A few weeks later, our treasurer met with the head of SAFAC to discuss a purchase request.  He informally told him that our allocations were not filled out correctly and that we weren’t getting any funding — surprisingly, there was no appeals process this year.  We immediately panicked and sent emails to the SAFAC head, head chairs, our liasons, asking if we could resubmit or do anything.  Weeks passed with no response, typical to that of SAFAC, and finally we got our funding letter of about $100.  I am in the process of asking why we didn’t receive $500, as the SAFAC website says,

If your organization applies through Annual Allocations, you will be guaranteed a base operating expense of $500.00. Beyond the base operating expense, the amount an organization receives in Capital, Activity, or Conference expenses varies depending on the items asked for and whether or not SAFAC feels the items requested meet the mission of the organization or will benefit the students of Drexel University.

This leaves us in a very messy situation.  Sure, there is a way that our group can be blamed for this problem, because we never met with our liason and discussed the allocation process.  But the SAFAC website has many issues that need to be addressed — they mention an appeals process.  Also, I would like to know if my form submission was discriminated against — we were simply told “it was filled out wrong.”  No details were sent out with our final allocation.  The form itself was incredibly confusing and it was even forcing me to fill out items that I did not think were necessary (or it wouldn’t let me submit).  Also, as an extremely active group on campus that was funded about $8,000 last year, it is strange that they would so quickly deny us any funding at all — which would totally initiate our group.  $100 only funds hosting 4 tables on campus, for example, so recruiting will be limited — speakers are costly — hosting a conference is costly — etc.

Personally, I am considering seeking legal advice on this situation — something seems very fishy and although Drexel is a private university, there are ways to seek media attention against this issue and if they are violating the Constitution, I believe this doesn’t matter.  If legally seeking justice does not work, I will be issuing press releases to hopefully get some justice..

There are certainly ways to get money without trouble, especially through private funding from sponsors, but personally, I feel the need to keep SAFAC honest.  Whether this is an issue of discrimination, false advertising/contracts on their website, or just a tyranny of an unchecked university institution, it needs to be stopped or warned that its actions will not be taken lightly.

SLF is always accepting donations for our events and we look forward to starting a private funding endeavor shortly.  For now, here is our ChipIn.

Thank you for reading, and regardless of our funding, SLF will continue to be one of the most active and influential student groups for liberty in the world!

This statement was written by Stacy Litz, current Vice President, and does not contain all the opinions of the executive board.

Upcoming Events

May 4th, 2011:
SLF: Tabling for Liberty!
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=147657321969745&ref=mf

SLF Meeting: The Economics of Self Ownership
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=218599574833981

May 10th, 2011:  Open Discussion on Osama Bin Laden

May 11th, 2011: SLF Meeting: Hipsternomics
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=164459263613097

May 12, 2011: SLF Movie Night: “The American Dream”
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=199226930114939

May 13, 2011:  Tabling for Liberty!

May 25, 2011:  Fabled Enemies Movie Night at MBN Studios
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=146936425376156

End of Term Economics Professor Speech — TBD

Mike Moceri’s SLF Presentation on Networks as a Model for the Economy

“Higher Education: Why the Bubble” by Mike Moceri

Mike is wearing the awesome hat.

Mike Moceri, Drexel Law student and Student Liberty Front member, just wrote up this awesome piece inspired by the Peter Schiff presentation at Temple University today!   Great job!

 I just finished listening to Peter Schiff give a presentation at Temple University regarding the rising cost of education and the education bubble. The presentation was generally well-received, and I must admit that I agree with most of what he said. During his presentation, Mr. Schiff made a well crafted argument concerning the supply side of the education economy. He argued that the education bubble is largely due to government backed student loan programs artificially deflating the perceived cost of education. As a result, more students choose to attend university, which in turn drives down the value of the four year degree. He also spoke a bit about the fact that most students spend six years or longer to complete a degree program, and that a substantial number of students drop out. That’s all well and good, but Mr. Schiff missed a key point of argument which deserves more careful consideration. The demand side of the education economy seems completely unrelated to the supply. While tuition rates skyrocket, more and more students are choosing to take on the extra debt and go to college. Why?

Mr. Schiff attributes the increased demand to the artificially low perceived cost of education. Namely, he argues that students do not recognize the difficulty of paying off student loans. Students choose to take the money up-front simply assuming that they will land jobs after graduation which will enable them to pay the bills. Surely, this is one contributing factor. However, the education bubble cannot be explained away by this factor alone. Why are students so willing to shoulder the added debt load in the first place? What is the human incentive which drives the borrowing and spending?

It would be absurd to assume that students go to college with no idea of what they will get out of a four year education. But the reality is that almost every student knows that the education they receive at a university is not the primary benefit of a four year degree. Most students go to college not to receive an education, but to get jobs. And that’s a huge problem. When the primary value of a four year degree is the degree and not the associated knowledge that goes along with it, we face a huge problem of mismatched incentives. The result? A stagnant economy, lack of innovation, and an apparent over-abundance of talent which unfairly reduces the value of the four year degree.

Employers want to hire competent people as employees. Unfortunately, the process of screening potential candidates for employment is arduous, and there are very few cost-effective ways to judge a candidate’s true potential. As one example, assume you are a software company seeking to hire a new software engineer. You will likely receive hundreds of applications- each of which containing both a cover letter and a resume. The cover letters will contain bald assertions about the skill set of the potential employees, coupled with some vague platitudes about the candidates being hard workers. The cover letters are therefore largely meaningless. They do not, and in fact can not act as an accurate assessment of the candidates’ abilities as software engineers. A company might require that potential employees send in code samples- and some do. The problem with screening code samples is that it takes a tremendous amount of time. Not only does it take time, but it takes the time of software engineers who are already employed, who should be spending their time doing the actual job they were hired to do- to engineer software. A human resources employee (read: inexpensive) doesn’t have the requisite skills to screen candidates  on that level of detail. So what do most employers fall-back on as a cost effective alternative? They look to the resumes.

And herein lies the crux of the problem. In order to cut costs in hiring, employers rely on universities to do most of the screening for them. By categorically rejecting potential employees without the requisite degree, employers save time and money. Students know this, and are therefore willing to shoulder the debt of a four-year education to be able to get their feet in the door. Twenty years ago, a person who chose not to attend college could work in service-related jobs, do secretarial work, or various types of trade labor. Today however, because more and more students choose to attend university in order to land choice jobs, and because the job market as a whole hasn’t experienced much growth (in fact, it has contracted), those individuals without a four year degree are being shut out of even minimum-wage jobs as they are being taken up by all those unlucky degree holders who couldn’t seem to land those choice jobs after graduation. The end result? Those individuals who wouldn’t have gone to college twenty years ago now decide that in order to get a job, they have to go to college. Thus, we witness a vicious circle wherein students are the ultimate loser.

The problem doesn’t just end there, though. Many degree holders wind up having to work two or even three low-paying jobs in order to make their student loan payments. Because student loans can not be eliminated through bankruptcy, graduates become the wage-slaves of the banks. Not only do the students lose out, but employers do too. As more and more students achieve the requisite degree standard, the screening tool loses its effectiveness. The day that a software company will see 80%-90% of its applicants holding four year degrees is rapidly approaching. And when that day arrives, the categorical rejection of those few who don’t hold degrees won’t do much to cut hiring costs. The obvious solution: begin rejecting anyone who doesn’t have a PhD. Some companies, such as Google, are already beginning to adopt this strategy. But while this solution may be the most obvious one, it carries with it high costs for students. A higher degree carries with it even more debt, and the reality is that there are only so many jobs available. For those unlucky students who get their PhDs and fail to make the cut at elite companies, what is their alternative? Less elite companies. And what about the four year degree holders who anticipated getting those jobs? Minimum wage jobs. The cycle goes on, and on, and on.

The smart solution to this problem is for students and employers to stop viewing the university as an effective tool for evaluation of employability. Employers should begin relying more on skills-based testing to weed out candidates, and students should recognize that a university education is no guarantee of landing a good job. Only when the dropout rate increases and the number of qualified applicants shrinks will the cost of a university education finally start decreasing. Will this be a bad thing? Of course not! The money that those students would have taken out in loans for worthless degrees can be recapitalized into business loans, which can then be used to hire more employees. It might just be the case that the fast-track to a stronger economy lies not in more focus on education, but on less. The way to get us there, however, should not be isolated to supply-side solutions, but should incorporate demand-side solutions as well.

Almost time to organize another round of great events . . .

For the second half (5 weeks) of our term!

Peter Schiff is tonight at Temple University, looking forward to it!

Stay tuned for a update soon!

Upcoming Events

April 7th, 2011 — Objectivist Club Meeting at UPenn, 6PM

April 8th, 2011 — Liberty on the Rocks Meetup, 7PM-10PM, Lucy’s, 247 Market Street

April 12th, 2011 — What is Democratic Socialism?  5PM, Lower Level Creese, Con Room B

April 15th, 2011 — Atlas Shrugged Part 1 (Did you sign up for tickets at the last meeting?)

April 16th, 2011 — Sign Wave for Peace, 33rd and Market Streets, 12PM-1PM and Philadelphia Free Library Festival

April 18th, 2011 — Tax Day Protest, 10-2 at Mario, showing Money Banking and the Federal Reserve, 1st Bastiat Book Club, 8PM, location TBA (bar?)

April 19th, 2011 — Sierra Club Environmental Debate

April 20th, 2011 — 4/20 Bake Sale, 4/20 Meeting

April 23, 2011 — FedStock II

April 25th, 2011 — Ron Paul in NYC

April 27th, 2011 — Peter Schiff at Temple