Sumary critique on Williams, J. (2006, Summer2006). Debt Education Assignment

Sumary critique on Williams, J. (2006, Summer2006). Debt Education. Dissent - Assignment ExampleWith the eminent tuition, fees and interest rates on students loans, the writer notes that higher education may soon be go forth to the rich (Williams 54). The author also notes that this debt should not only be treated as a musical mode of financing the students but also as a form of teaching. From the lessons learnt from the student debt, the author proposes that the best panache would be to do away with the current system of student debt and move to direct lending controlled by the federal government to colleges (Williams 53-59).The author clearly explains and shows the significance of debt to the students and their families. The author provides credible evidence to show how absolute majority of American populace depend on the student debt to finance their higher education. Education is a emergency and it is for this reason that the author provides sufficient support to the point that people should not pay back for a necessity (William 57). The author also tries to show how student debt has immensely changed over the past decades. In addition, the author shows that the student debt serves more as a teaching mode than as a financing mode. It teaches us that higher education is a consumer service, teaches us career choices, comprehensive view of the world and human life, civil lessons, and the worth of an individual (Williams 56-58). With this, the author tries to answer to the question why student debt should be scraped off and shake to federal government lending. Moreover, the author has used significant terms such as draconian, educational activity and worldview.However, though the author opens an outstanding proposal, he fails to understand and explain that financing of higher education by the federal government means an increase in taxes, which would be borne by the American Citizens. Increase in taxes would result to increased prices of items, and the poor would again be on the suffering end. In addition, the author fails to give support on why