Without knowing the first thing about actuarial processes or how insurance companies set rates, my gut reaction as that this is just more whining. If having less education or a different occupation puts you in a higher risk category statistically, it would be ridiculous for an insurance company to give you the same rate as someone with more education and an occupation that statistically carries a higher risk.

Under Geico’s guidelines, he said, a New Orleans factory worker without a high school education would pay $2,636 for insurance, 91 percent more the $1,382 that a white-collar worker with a graduate degree would pay for the same vehicle and location.

“There is clearly a disparate impact on minorities and lower income people,” Hunter said in an interview. “If it isn’t violative of the law, it should be. It strikes me as very unfair.”

In a March 14 letter to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the CFA said Geico’s use of educational status alone to determine rates allows it to bypass prohibitions on using income as a guideline for setting rates, on the grounds that doing so is racially discriminatory.

“What is very troubling is that Geico appears to be using these guidelines as a de facto rating method,” it said. “Geico’s methodology is reprehensible because not everyone has the opportunity or can afford to pursue a four-year college degree.”

I guess some things in life are just not fair. Stop the whining. I was a 20 year old kid once and I had high car insurance rates. If I smoke I would expect higher life insurance rates. If statistically someone with a lower educational level is more likely to wreck their car (or maybe it puts them at a higher risk of not paying their premiums, or not paying them on time (basically a credit issue), which would add to Geico’s cost of managing the policy), then make them pay more for insurance. Nothing wrong with that.