Mark:

Less you misunderstand me, I’m a huge fan of financial education. If I was independently wealthy, I’d give up this law gig in a heartbeat to work on developing an effective way to increase the financial literacy of Americans. I’d like to see the start of a conversation in this country on what role the state should play in educating individuals about finance. Although it’s considerably less high-brow than the history and language arts that we require public schools to teach, personal finance becomes more important by the day.

I have thought about this before, too. However, at the same time, high schoolers, by and large, probably don't have much interest in understanding of personal finance. I dare say most of them probably have free room and board and are caught up in the whole consumerism of our society. Think about it: they want the latest toys, stereos, Ipods, clothing fashions, car accessories and a lot of other things that are too numerous to mention. Add into the mix that they are bombarded with advertising directed at them telling them how "cool" it is (or whatever word that their generation has now) to have all this stuff.

However, a college level course would not be such a bad idea; although you probably could only make it an elective. Colleges and universities already are complaining about all of the remedial work they are required to do. I am not so sure they would be jumping at the chance to add something else into the mix. This would be beneficial as many college students are just becoming financially and personally independent. It would be the best time to learn. But this does give me an idea. Hmmmm.

We are witnessing the death throes of the age of company pensions and company provided health care. In its place is a world where all Americans are expected to have the financial acuity of MBAs in order to understand the complicated credit products, investment vehicles and tax-preferred savings accounts for health care, education and retirement.

Having worked (technically still working) as a bankruptcy attorney, I know full well from the front lines all the damage our "personal responsibility" culture gone mad has had on the lower and middle classes. It begs to be asked: what about the responsibility of the corporations that hired these people to fully fund the pensions and health care guarantees they promised the workers and the federal government as part of this great "social contract?"

Among the very first posts on my blog (link below) I wrote "How to Avoid Bankruptcy" in a series and the need for national health care and pension system in several others to provide stability, portability and uniformity in fundamental guarantees for workers and citizens.

Even so, I like your point about current policies now seemingly require everyone to have, for practical purposes, an MBA for both personal short-term and long-term financial planning. (That is to say: we are requiring too much for most of the population. Many people, probably most, just want to go to their 9-to-5 job, take their weekend jaunt to the lake, raise their kids and enjoy a few luxuries along life's path.) Although to suggest that we need more governmental regulation strikes many in my part of the country as too paternalistic (conservatives would wrongly label such a policy "socialism"). But, given the excesses of the last six years -- especially the last two -- some paternalistic policies by the federal government seems necessary -- like a nanny coming in to bring unruly children to order. (I don't think I am the first one to use such a metaphor, either.)

Keep up the good work.

Satellite Sky Blog

Find the Truth. Do Justice.

OkieLawyer raises a good point about high school students not being motivated to learn finances but I think they will be at least as motivated to learn everyday financial information as they are with the current academics. Just like any other course, the teaching method can make a world of differnce. How about a few lessons that require the student to interact with his parents to discuss some of the issues. The more I think about it the more I like that idea.
As for teaching personal financial courses in college, maybe we should start by answering one question - Should the student be required to certify that he has personally paid for the cost of that course as part of the registration process?
I recently read a "My Turn" in Newsweek where a graduate from a top private college was bemoaning the fact that her college did not have such courses. She was having trouble managing on her waitresses pay and tips. (There's another whole story here)I believe that, unfortunately, anyone who is smart enough to be accepted to a top private school but who fails to learn personal finance on her own from the miriad of soureces that exist in the marketplace probably needs to be awakened to personal finance issues through a few tough experiences. Another course is not going to do it.

Thanks for your input.  Many people I've talked to in the consumer protection/affairs etc. arena have greeted my thoughts on financial education with healthy skepticism.  I agree that high school is probably too early for most students.  Although, I was fortunate enough to have a trigonometry teacher who spent as much time talking about mortgages and IRAs as he did trig (Thanks Mr. Yahn!).

College might be a better time and place.  I think an elective course might be most effective (you can't lead students to the time value of money let alone make them drink).  Without some long-term studies tracking the effectiveness of taking these sorts of classes, we'll keep on guessing.   

I'm not a big fan of regulation myself, which is why I'm hoping that education might partially address the problem.  In addition to being paternalistic, I think regulation in this area would simply fail to keep up with the marketplace.  In a battle between lenders and Congress, my money's on the lenders.