Obama to Propose Paying Community College Tuition for Some(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Obama to Propose Paying Community College Tuition for Some
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/us/politics/obama-proposes-free-community-college-education-for-some-students.html
20 comments
> America has been forsaking our commitment to public higher education for decades now.
Direct aid to students was flat when adjusted for inflation in the 80s and 90s, but doubled under the second President Bush. The recession & financial crisis curbed our enthusiasm for Pell grants & whatnot, but funding has climbed in the last couple years & will again.
In addition the federal government funds university faculty, administrators, and researchers through the DOD, DOE, NSF, NIH, etc. This funding has fallen over time as a percentage of GDP, but has increased relative to inflation.
I don't think the US has forsaken its commitment to public education from a spending standpoint. We have lost track of the purpose and value of education. Schools today spend a lot of their money on administration and facilities that do not directly advance research or teaching.
Direct aid to students was flat when adjusted for inflation in the 80s and 90s, but doubled under the second President Bush. The recession & financial crisis curbed our enthusiasm for Pell grants & whatnot, but funding has climbed in the last couple years & will again.
In addition the federal government funds university faculty, administrators, and researchers through the DOD, DOE, NSF, NIH, etc. This funding has fallen over time as a percentage of GDP, but has increased relative to inflation.
I don't think the US has forsaken its commitment to public education from a spending standpoint. We have lost track of the purpose and value of education. Schools today spend a lot of their money on administration and facilities that do not directly advance research or teaching.
You're writing about funding at the federal level (Pell grants, DOE, NSF, etc.) but traditionally the most important component of public higher education was state university systems. Until the 1980s, California had world-class universities (UCLA, UC Berkeley) that were free for any students from the state.
That's a good point. CA spends less out of its general fund per student in real dollars than in the 80s. I think "other" accounts for more UC $s than either general funds or tuition/fees.
The UC's spending tracks the CA economy pretty closely. CA's "world-class prisons", on the other hand, just keep getting more money in good times & in bad.
The UC's spending tracks the CA economy pretty closely. CA's "world-class prisons", on the other hand, just keep getting more money in good times & in bad.
Nice idea, but the final effect will be higher prices across the higher-ed system.
Since government started subsidizing higher eduction by underwriting student loans, college tuition has risen much faster than inflation, both for private and public schools.
At the same time, more and more people have gone to college and the value of a college degree has declined, as more people enter the marketplace with them.
Anecdotally, it appears (from the college graduates I've interviewed) that the quality of a college education has also declined noticeably in the past 30 years.
All of these are unintended consequences, but not surprising results when you look at the situation from the perspective of economics.
At the same time, more and more people have gone to college and the value of a college degree has declined, as more people enter the marketplace with them.
Anecdotally, it appears (from the college graduates I've interviewed) that the quality of a college education has also declined noticeably in the past 30 years.
All of these are unintended consequences, but not surprising results when you look at the situation from the perspective of economics.
> Since government started subsidizing higher eduction by underwriting student loans, college tuition has risen much faster than inflation, both for private and public schools.
Do you happen to have links to data that supports that? I was unable to find historical tuition rates for more than a handful of schools when I looked several months ago, but for the few I did find last it appeared to not be true. They were rising much faster than inflation long before the government stepped in, and did not show much if any change after that...maybe just a slight increase.
Do you happen to have links to data that supports that? I was unable to find historical tuition rates for more than a handful of schools when I looked several months ago, but for the few I did find last it appeared to not be true. They were rising much faster than inflation long before the government stepped in, and did not show much if any change after that...maybe just a slight increase.
True, but when you talk about the perspective of economics, it behooves you to talk about demand, I think. The broad based demand for a college education is based on the irrational thinking that so many should have a college education in order to work, which is pretty much untrue.
It's hard to argue that the quality of a college education has declined when its purpose has changed. So many folks just need a college degree to remain competitive, at least on paper, and not much else. I think this is a much more modern trend.
Perhaps one could make the case that the low cost of a college education somehow spurred this irrational demand for it. So many people have set off to set themselves apart with a degree that now only substandard prospective workers don't have them.
It's hard to argue that the quality of a college education has declined when its purpose has changed. So many folks just need a college degree to remain competitive, at least on paper, and not much else. I think this is a much more modern trend.
Perhaps one could make the case that the low cost of a college education somehow spurred this irrational demand for it. So many people have set off to set themselves apart with a degree that now only substandard prospective workers don't have them.
Perhaps the demand is irrational, but the effects are very real:
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
It would be nice if we could change the fundamental problems underlying that irrational demand (pre-college schooling which doesn't prepare students for work, a national obsession with white collar jobs, etc.). However, if I was staring down a big wealth gap and decided to propose a concrete policy shift to resolve some of it, I think that it's not a bad idea to get people moved from the 7-11% unemployment category to the 5.4% unemployment category.
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
It would be nice if we could change the fundamental problems underlying that irrational demand (pre-college schooling which doesn't prepare students for work, a national obsession with white collar jobs, etc.). However, if I was staring down a big wealth gap and decided to propose a concrete policy shift to resolve some of it, I think that it's not a bad idea to get people moved from the 7-11% unemployment category to the 5.4% unemployment category.
> if I was staring down a big wealth gap and decided to propose a concrete policy shift to resolve some of it, I think that it's not a bad idea to get people moved from the 7-11% unemployment category to the 5.4% unemployment category
Sure, as long as the categories have no content other than an employment rating, this makes sense. According to the same logic, you could have huge effects on unemployment by giving black people cosmetic surgery and calling them white.
Sure, as long as the categories have no content other than an employment rating, this makes sense. According to the same logic, you could have huge effects on unemployment by giving black people cosmetic surgery and calling them white.
It's not exactly great that race is a decent predictor of education level[1], or of income[2], but that doesn't mean that we have to solve the entire race problem to improve social equality. America has failed miserably for some time now to "cure" racism[3]. So what's wrong with throwing resources at improving some of the social factors which contribute to racial/socioeconomic trends?
As an aside, it's a bit simplified and inflammatory to cast this as a black/white thing. If you insist on boiling this down to only being about race (a stance I would disagree with), the comparison is much starker when cast as hispanic/asian[1] or black/asian[2].
[1] http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_caa.asp [2] http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0691.p... [3] Any contemporary news story about the police in dense urban areas.
As an aside, it's a bit simplified and inflammatory to cast this as a black/white thing. If you insist on boiling this down to only being about race (a stance I would disagree with), the comparison is much starker when cast as hispanic/asian[1] or black/asian[2].
[1] http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_caa.asp [2] http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0691.p... [3] Any contemporary news story about the police in dense urban areas.
> As an aside, it's a bit simplified and inflammatory to cast this as a black/white thing.
I agree in a limited way. I was originally going to use forced religious conversion as my example instead of cosmetic surgery, but I discovered that while it's easy to find unemployment statistics by race, it's not so easy to find unemployment statistics by religion.
Regardless -- as far as I can see, you've completely missed the point that being in a bucket labeled "5.4% unemployment" doesn't necessarily cause people to personally experience 5.4% unemployment. If it sounds strange to you that a group of people might develop better employment statistics by having cosmetic surgery en masse, or by all converting from voodoo to judaism, that should give you pause before concluding that forced education would have any more effect than forced conversion.
I agree in a limited way. I was originally going to use forced religious conversion as my example instead of cosmetic surgery, but I discovered that while it's easy to find unemployment statistics by race, it's not so easy to find unemployment statistics by religion.
Regardless -- as far as I can see, you've completely missed the point that being in a bucket labeled "5.4% unemployment" doesn't necessarily cause people to personally experience 5.4% unemployment. If it sounds strange to you that a group of people might develop better employment statistics by having cosmetic surgery en masse, or by all converting from voodoo to judaism, that should give you pause before concluding that forced education would have any more effect than forced conversion.
Making it easier/cheaper to get an education != forced education.
Looking at a trend and making a pretty fair assumption about it having cause/effect tendencies is not "missing the point" of statistics about employment and education. As far as I can tell, it's the whole reason we collect them. One does not become employed to become educated, it's the other way around. Similarly, one does not fail to become educated because one failed to be employed. There might be less of a connection than some would claim, but the link is there.
Further, I would be eager to hear about a __practical__ alternative to improved education for reducing inequality. I'm sure there are some, but I'm also sure that making sweeping assumptions about the economic viability of being {religion}/{race}/{insert difference here} doesn't really help anyone unless there's a magical way to make the human brain more tolerant of difference. Surely the real solutions to inequality will come from assessing our weakest points and shoring them up -- education is a pretty weak point in the US right now.
Looking at a trend and making a pretty fair assumption about it having cause/effect tendencies is not "missing the point" of statistics about employment and education. As far as I can tell, it's the whole reason we collect them. One does not become employed to become educated, it's the other way around. Similarly, one does not fail to become educated because one failed to be employed. There might be less of a connection than some would claim, but the link is there.
Further, I would be eager to hear about a __practical__ alternative to improved education for reducing inequality. I'm sure there are some, but I'm also sure that making sweeping assumptions about the economic viability of being {religion}/{race}/{insert difference here} doesn't really help anyone unless there's a magical way to make the human brain more tolerant of difference. Surely the real solutions to inequality will come from assessing our weakest points and shoring them up -- education is a pretty weak point in the US right now.
"The broad based demand for a college education is based on the irrational thinking that so many should have a college education in order to work, which is pretty much untrue."
Sources? The "you don't need college" meme is quite popular with VC of late, and I think is often true in the technology field. But is this true in other white collar job sectors? I'm honestly asking.
Sources? The "you don't need college" meme is quite popular with VC of late, and I think is often true in the technology field. But is this true in other white collar job sectors? I'm honestly asking.
>At the same time, more and more people have gone to college and the value of a college degree has declined, as more people enter the marketplace with them.
You might expect this to be true, but the data actually shows the highest gap between college and highschool graduates in half a century[1], meaning the value of a college degree has increased.
[1] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/11/the-rising-cost-of...
You might expect this to be true, but the data actually shows the highest gap between college and highschool graduates in half a century[1], meaning the value of a college degree has increased.
[1] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/11/the-rising-cost-of...
As comparison with any other First World country shows, there is a vast difference in effects between subsidizing X by having the state directly supply it for free or cheap, and "subsidizing" X by having the state subsidize credit to be spent on X.
If its free to go to a community college, won't 4 year universities have to keep their prices lower or people will just decide to go to community college for free.
Community college is already a tiny fraction of the cost of a university, yet people flock to universities. You can save tens of thousands of dollars by getting your associate's at a CC, even if you go on to get a bachelor's at a 4-year school.
Correct, considering that the core courses are virtually identical across many programs, your English/History/Ethics/etc. course are much more economical to take at the local CC and transfer in.
That would only be true if community college were an equivalent alternative. Unfortunately it is not.
Unless you care about education for education's sake and nothing of jobs or career prospects, then a well motivated individual could learn a ton at a community college.
Unless you care about education for education's sake and nothing of jobs or career prospects, then a well motivated individual could learn a ton at a community college.
Students usually transfer to a 4 year college after 2 years. That means that employers see a degree from X State University, not Y Junior College.
In the community colleges in my state (Texas) they make sure credits can transfer to UT, A&M and other Universities. So they are equivalent in terms of those classes (typically at freshman or sophomore level).
This is true in most states. The various CC systems in CA should transfer cleanly into the University of California system, same for SUNY, University of Virginia system and other public college systems.
The classes are absolutely equivalent to the Fresh and Sophomore classes and an A.S. degree from a CC should start you as a Junior at the big-kid school.
The classes are absolutely equivalent to the Fresh and Sophomore classes and an A.S. degree from a CC should start you as a Junior at the big-kid school.
Same in Oregon. I did what is called a AAOT which basically guarantees that you will be admitted as a junior at any four year school in the state. And to be honest I didn't care all that much about the quality of the education since the first two years I was taking a bunch of General Education requirements that didn't really apply to my degree.
And a lot of trades come up through community colleges. The one here has two year degrees for auto mechanics, aircraft mechanics, HVAC, welders, CAD, CNC, plumbing, electricians, and so on. My bet is Obama is more concerned about that aspect of the program than people transferring to four year schools.
And a lot of trades come up through community colleges. The one here has two year degrees for auto mechanics, aircraft mechanics, HVAC, welders, CAD, CNC, plumbing, electricians, and so on. My bet is Obama is more concerned about that aspect of the program than people transferring to four year schools.
I don't know...the transferred credit aspect could be huge.
I wish I'd taken classes like Organic Chemistry in CC. There is no way anyone could convince me that my quality of learning would be worse considering that class at University of Texas had hundreds of people in it.
But if it were free, it'd be a no-brainer.
So, either the quality of these classes will have to get tons better at University or their prices will have to come down.
People are squawking about how third party payments will cause prices to rise but I just don't see how that can happen in this case.
I wish I'd taken classes like Organic Chemistry in CC. There is no way anyone could convince me that my quality of learning would be worse considering that class at University of Texas had hundreds of people in it.
But if it were free, it'd be a no-brainer.
So, either the quality of these classes will have to get tons better at University or their prices will have to come down.
People are squawking about how third party payments will cause prices to rise but I just don't see how that can happen in this case.
[deleted]
Absolutely right. The $800 billion owed in tuition reimbursement, which will eventually be forgiven given the current climate, is the reason govt needs to stay out of education.
What if it was done like healthcare, something like where the government caps the tuition they're willing to spend per student and negotiates lower tuitions by having numbers? I that possible?
Maybe that would force universities to cut costs. But would that be so bad? I feel like a lot of university spending is trying to be fancy to attract more students not because it's valuable to student learning or well-being.
Maybe that would force universities to cut costs. But would that be so bad? I feel like a lot of university spending is trying to be fancy to attract more students not because it's valuable to student learning or well-being.
Or just outright make this the equivalent of high school, but for students that actually /want/ to be there, instead of whom are /required/ to be there. That, and sports distractions instead of academic pursuits, are the most grievous reasons 'High School' isn't fulfilling the role that '2 years of community college' is supposed to provide.
> The proposal would cover half-time and full-time students who maintain a 2.5 grade point average and “make steady progress toward completing a program,” White House officials said.
So it will be performance based, rewarding only those students who have a good grade, incentivizing studying.
So it will be performance based, rewarding only those students who have a good grade, incentivizing studying.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I do wonder what type of effect this will cause with job requirements, will master's now be the new bachelors?
The more worrying issue is the government taking on more student loan debt. There is a student loan bubble but it has not hurt the economy partially due to federal requirements that the loan not be discharged. What happens if current graduation rates hold steady and the US is stuck with a large bill but nothing to show for the effort?
The more worrying issue is the government taking on more student loan debt. There is a student loan bubble but it has not hurt the economy partially due to federal requirements that the loan not be discharged. What happens if current graduation rates hold steady and the US is stuck with a large bill but nothing to show for the effort?
"...but it has not hurt the economy partially due to federal requirements that the loan not be discharged."
I'm curious to know what you mean by the requirement that it not be able to be discharged being beneficial. So far there seem to be three types of student loan borrowers:
1) Those who can and are paying their loans; 2) Those who got way over their heads--either through poor borrowing practices or income shortage--and who are struggling yet still paying their loans instead of creating other economic activity; 3) Those who can't pay--again, through poor borrowing practices, income shortage, or some type of major life event--and are now screwed.
The idea behind bankruptcy is to let even the most buried of us be able to at least partially fill in the hole. That certain classes of loans create a permanent millstone seems, to me, a bit skewed.
I'm curious to know what you mean by the requirement that it not be able to be discharged being beneficial. So far there seem to be three types of student loan borrowers:
1) Those who can and are paying their loans; 2) Those who got way over their heads--either through poor borrowing practices or income shortage--and who are struggling yet still paying their loans instead of creating other economic activity; 3) Those who can't pay--again, through poor borrowing practices, income shortage, or some type of major life event--and are now screwed.
The idea behind bankruptcy is to let even the most buried of us be able to at least partially fill in the hole. That certain classes of loans create a permanent millstone seems, to me, a bit skewed.
#3s can get their student debt discharged if they can demonstrate undue hardship: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/523
It requires a good attorney & YMMV
It requires a good attorney & YMMV
That's theoretically true but for the "good attorney" part. I wonder how many debtors in that position can afford such an attorney. For example, one proceeding that took a decade and many hours of pro bono work by a five-star bankruptcy firm:
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/student-loan-ranger/20...
The 9th Circuit opinion made things a tiny bit better, at least for student loan debtors in the Pacific time zone (plus Hawaii and Alaska), but the standard is still exceptionally, almost punitively, high.
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/student-loan-ranger/20...
The 9th Circuit opinion made things a tiny bit better, at least for student loan debtors in the Pacific time zone (plus Hawaii and Alaska), but the standard is still exceptionally, almost punitively, high.
"...but it has not hurt the economy..."
Really? When people are burdened with mortgage-sized unsecured debt, they spend much less. It places enormous downward pressure on the economy.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-jan-june12-studentlo...
Really? When people are burdened with mortgage-sized unsecured debt, they spend much less. It places enormous downward pressure on the economy.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business-jan-june12-studentlo...
Little question it's removing growth from the economy.
The US Government is printing immense profits from the student loan racket presently. $600 billion in new debt has been added to the government's pool of that in just the last six years.
That $600 billion just for those six years alone, will probably end up costing over a trillion dollars with interest. That's capital no longer available for production or consumption.
The US Government is printing immense profits from the student loan racket presently. $600 billion in new debt has been added to the government's pool of that in just the last six years.
That $600 billion just for those six years alone, will probably end up costing over a trillion dollars with interest. That's capital no longer available for production or consumption.
As AI/automation takes over jobs, this is exactly what people should be paid to do - go to school.
I went to community college and transferred into an excellent, top 5 (according to some rankings anyway) school. I would say that most people in community college don't really want to be there. Many of the students that I started with are still there (3 years later), and will likely not graduate nor transfer.
From my experience I still think the education problem needs to be solved in K-6th grade. I believe my successful transition from community college to a university was the result of excellent classmates who I joined in middle and high school (many of them went to schools like Yale or MIT so perhaps there was some sort of exposure effect) and/or very encouraging community college teachers/professors. Personally I found community college professors to be way more invested (on the upper end, anyway) then my high school teachers, and I went to a pretty good high school.
The reason it should start at K-6th grade is because so many people lack solid foundations. There are people in community college who are not good at algebra. These fundamentals need to be well taught. In addition, kids need to learn how to teach themselves and also need to be properly motivated, but not coddled.
Increasing the pay of teachers and making teaching as a profession more prestigious and rigorous will solve the K-6th grade education problem, which will help with education as a whole.
Oh, and we should do something about poverty (because let's face it, if you're poor and in a terrible neighborhood, the odds are against you. I know, because I was that person).
From my experience I still think the education problem needs to be solved in K-6th grade. I believe my successful transition from community college to a university was the result of excellent classmates who I joined in middle and high school (many of them went to schools like Yale or MIT so perhaps there was some sort of exposure effect) and/or very encouraging community college teachers/professors. Personally I found community college professors to be way more invested (on the upper end, anyway) then my high school teachers, and I went to a pretty good high school.
The reason it should start at K-6th grade is because so many people lack solid foundations. There are people in community college who are not good at algebra. These fundamentals need to be well taught. In addition, kids need to learn how to teach themselves and also need to be properly motivated, but not coddled.
Increasing the pay of teachers and making teaching as a profession more prestigious and rigorous will solve the K-6th grade education problem, which will help with education as a whole.
Oh, and we should do something about poverty (because let's face it, if you're poor and in a terrible neighborhood, the odds are against you. I know, because I was that person).
Growing up we had a family friend who taught at both the local high school and community college. He always said that at the CC he saw both extremes. On one hand yes the vast majority of students there didn't give a shit and it was just high school 2.0 to delay the real world.
But he also had the students who cared the most. The single working mothers. The students who desperately wanted a good education but couldn't afford it so they were taking the responsible Community College -> State University path.
But he also had the students who cared the most. The single working mothers. The students who desperately wanted a good education but couldn't afford it so they were taking the responsible Community College -> State University path.
An acquaintance taught at a NY state CC for a while after retiring from a state school in the Midwest. He said that he found a bimodal distribution in his classes: the highly motivated and well prepared on the one end, the unprepared or unmotivated on the other, and not that many between.
When I was in Community College back in 2010, absolutely nobody wanted to be there. I didn't understand why the experience wasn't the same as portrayed in the movies. No dorm rooms, crazy parties, or bonding with other students. You were either there because you were stuck making minimum wage, to transfer, or because you were in trouble (a lot of kids made some deal with their parents or parol officers). You got in, and got out. I only stopped going because I got an awesome job at a startup.
Just recently went back to Community College, if nothing more than to say I've a degree too. It still feels a little silly though. I've been programming for years, and I still have to take "Computer Programming Fundamentals", which is a waste of time, and money out of my pocket. Oh well.
Just recently went back to Community College, if nothing more than to say I've a degree too. It still feels a little silly though. I've been programming for years, and I still have to take "Computer Programming Fundamentals", which is a waste of time, and money out of my pocket. Oh well.
You can always CLEP out, http://clep.collegeboard.org/exam/information-systems-comput...
> I would say that most people in community college don't really want to be there.
Odd. That wasn't my experience at all.
I went to Cabrillo College, a community college in Aptos, CA.
Great school, inspiring profs (many with PhD's), students were generally engaged and excited to be there.
I transferred to Berkeley, did well there (felt well-prepared) and saved a heck of a lot of money a long the way. Zero debt post graduation.
I highly recommend Community College, albeit make sure good transfer options exist.
I have heard of people transferring the Stanford and Yale from Cabrillo, but maybe it's just an exception.
Odd. That wasn't my experience at all.
I went to Cabrillo College, a community college in Aptos, CA.
Great school, inspiring profs (many with PhD's), students were generally engaged and excited to be there.
I transferred to Berkeley, did well there (felt well-prepared) and saved a heck of a lot of money a long the way. Zero debt post graduation.
I highly recommend Community College, albeit make sure good transfer options exist.
I have heard of people transferring the Stanford and Yale from Cabrillo, but maybe it's just an exception.
I concur. At least in the circle of people I spent my time with, we were there really to study and grab the opportunity CC gave us. The teachers don't make anything there, so they're also extra eager to help students who really put forth the effort.
Hands down, 9 of the 10 best teachers I had were CC profs. They were so happy to help, they'd show up on weekends and help out with study groups and review coursework again to make sure you really got the foundational stuff so you didn't get lost later.
The age range was crazy too, from sharp 14 year olds there to take Calculus, to senior citizens. always somebody interesting to run into and incredible tutoring opportunities everywhere.
CC can be an incredible resource.
Most important, they're also designed for mid-career training, so you can go and take classes in whatever they offer even if you aren't in a degree program, just because you want to. My wife and I both take classes from time-to-time in subjects we've tried to autodidact, but some cheap classroom time has ended up helping everytime. Or we'll take a class together in something like Art and turn it into a date-night....get dinner after work, take a painting class, come home with a little piece of art.
Hands down, 9 of the 10 best teachers I had were CC profs. They were so happy to help, they'd show up on weekends and help out with study groups and review coursework again to make sure you really got the foundational stuff so you didn't get lost later.
The age range was crazy too, from sharp 14 year olds there to take Calculus, to senior citizens. always somebody interesting to run into and incredible tutoring opportunities everywhere.
CC can be an incredible resource.
Most important, they're also designed for mid-career training, so you can go and take classes in whatever they offer even if you aren't in a degree program, just because you want to. My wife and I both take classes from time-to-time in subjects we've tried to autodidact, but some cheap classroom time has ended up helping everytime. Or we'll take a class together in something like Art and turn it into a date-night....get dinner after work, take a painting class, come home with a little piece of art.
"The age range was crazy too, from sharp 14 year olds there to take Calculus, to senior citizens."
I took a Recent American History class, and one of my classmates had been a member of SNCC.
I took a Recent American History class, and one of my classmates had been a member of SNCC.
[deleted]
My experience with Cabrillo was similar. For me, it made an excellent highschool.
> From my experience I still think the education problem needs to be solved in K-6th grade.
This is true, but the fundamental education problem is that we're teaching the wrong foundations to begin with. It's not the substance of the curricula that's a problem but the overarching goal: we create adults who either follow the rules or rebel against them. In neither case do they think about the rules or engage with them constructively.
The consequence is, well... today.
> Increasing the pay of teachers and making teaching as a profession more prestigious and rigorous will solve the K-6th grade education problem, which will help with education as a whole.
I disagree. Oh, I think we should do it, and we should stop tying school funding to test results, but making teaching prestigious and lucrative won't fix anything by itself: bad teachers will get worse even as good teachers get better. Look at doctors.
I actually favor the opposite. Lower the number of paid teachers (and raise the salary accordingly) and start creating a social practice of volunteering. Use the paid staff as expert guides and institutional resources for the volunteers and gap-fillers in the curriculum. What you lose in pure rigor you'll make up for in quality and relevance. (This doesn't apply past high school; I'd rather see the consequences of this hit higher education before I speculate about how they should change to suit.)
This is true, but the fundamental education problem is that we're teaching the wrong foundations to begin with. It's not the substance of the curricula that's a problem but the overarching goal: we create adults who either follow the rules or rebel against them. In neither case do they think about the rules or engage with them constructively.
The consequence is, well... today.
> Increasing the pay of teachers and making teaching as a profession more prestigious and rigorous will solve the K-6th grade education problem, which will help with education as a whole.
I disagree. Oh, I think we should do it, and we should stop tying school funding to test results, but making teaching prestigious and lucrative won't fix anything by itself: bad teachers will get worse even as good teachers get better. Look at doctors.
I actually favor the opposite. Lower the number of paid teachers (and raise the salary accordingly) and start creating a social practice of volunteering. Use the paid staff as expert guides and institutional resources for the volunteers and gap-fillers in the curriculum. What you lose in pure rigor you'll make up for in quality and relevance. (This doesn't apply past high school; I'd rather see the consequences of this hit higher education before I speculate about how they should change to suit.)
I agree with all you say, I just want to add that parenting matters very much. Parents who care and are involved and demand. Yes, many parents go overboard and put their kids in a pressure cooker, but there is a middle ground between that and parents who say, 'that's what school is for' (to teach them). In other words the kids need to be accultured into wanting if not loving academics and learning.
For many of the kids I grew up with, school was an irritant --something they had to go to but didn't want to. Most of their parents were middle class but not the educated yuppie parents.
But to this program. While it may not guarantee better jobs for all graduates, I still think it's good idea to have young adults exposed to ideas and mentors. I'd rather have educated unemployed people than uneducated unemployed people if it ended in a wash... Still, I think this is a good way to address one thing which may keep some kids from going the next step in their way to higher learning and hopefully more fulfilling jobs.
For many of the kids I grew up with, school was an irritant --something they had to go to but didn't want to. Most of their parents were middle class but not the educated yuppie parents.
But to this program. While it may not guarantee better jobs for all graduates, I still think it's good idea to have young adults exposed to ideas and mentors. I'd rather have educated unemployed people than uneducated unemployed people if it ended in a wash... Still, I think this is a good way to address one thing which may keep some kids from going the next step in their way to higher learning and hopefully more fulfilling jobs.
The majority of students who I went to Community College with were, like myself, there to take university-level classes and transfer.
Granted, we were a bit unique in that we were 10 miles from a university, and mimicked much of that school's courses.
Granted, we were a bit unique in that we were 10 miles from a university, and mimicked much of that school's courses.
> Many of the students that I started with are still there (3 years later)
How many of them are working full or part time while taking classes?
How many of them are working full or part time while taking classes?
I'd rather see a more general program that would pay anyone's tuition for one class per semester.
My girlfriend and mother both started at community college, both transferred to Berkeley and both did very well there. They saved a lot of money in the process. And while those success stories are great (and not that rare) the more important role of CC may be preparing people with sub-par high school educations for a more rigorous college experience.
Having said that, I'd rather see a push for universal pre-school education.
Having said that, I'd rather see a push for universal pre-school education.
>Having said that, I'd rather see a push for universal pre-school education.
Why? Several studies have shown that the initial advantages of pre-school are gone by 3rd grade.
Here's a quick summary with a link to one of the largest studies commissioned by the federal government. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/09/15headstart.h32...
Why? Several studies have shown that the initial advantages of pre-school are gone by 3rd grade.
Here's a quick summary with a link to one of the largest studies commissioned by the federal government. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/09/15headstart.h32...
Because of this: "Parents of Head Start participants in the 4-year-old cohort reported less aggressive behavior in their children at the end of 3rd grade than did the parents of the other children. For the 3-year-old group, Head Start parents saw better social skills in their children."
Learning is great. Being sufficiently socialized is more important. I'd like to see data from when these kids are in their teens or twenties.
Learning is great. Being sufficiently socialized is more important. I'd like to see data from when these kids are in their teens or twenties.
Since republicans control congress at the moment, they know it will be veto'd, but it will only help to push the agenda that republicans are bad. I see this being used to push the next presidential race.
It's probably not a coincidence that Obama is going to announce this plan in Tennessee. The Republican governor of Tennessee, Bill Haslam, has made affordable college a key part of his platform.
One comment I've read today sums it up: "Watching [Obama] co-opt the crown jewel of Haslam's 2020 or 2024 presidential run is so, so beautiful"
One comment I've read today sums it up: "Watching [Obama] co-opt the crown jewel of Haslam's 2020 or 2024 presidential run is so, so beautiful"
The student loan crisis is a much bigger problem.
18 year old kids are being given the ability to take on massive, crushing debt that is too easily used for vacations, boob jobs, or whatever else, and even when it is only used for classes, people feel like they need to take on this debt to spend 4 years learning (and forgetting) material that they will never use, for degrees that probably won't be relevant to their career.
Just to get a slip of paper that says "bachelor's degree". It is trapping people.
Making community college easily accessible is a nice step, but community college is already incredibly cheap in most places, people don't go there because of costs but because they don't have the name recognition of a state school or a big private school.
Sometimes small policy steps like this (it won't get passed in this climate anyway) are more destructive than not doing anything at all. They give the illusion of progress, or treat the symptoms when the real illness remains unresolved
18 year old kids are being given the ability to take on massive, crushing debt that is too easily used for vacations, boob jobs, or whatever else, and even when it is only used for classes, people feel like they need to take on this debt to spend 4 years learning (and forgetting) material that they will never use, for degrees that probably won't be relevant to their career.
Just to get a slip of paper that says "bachelor's degree". It is trapping people.
Making community college easily accessible is a nice step, but community college is already incredibly cheap in most places, people don't go there because of costs but because they don't have the name recognition of a state school or a big private school.
Sometimes small policy steps like this (it won't get passed in this climate anyway) are more destructive than not doing anything at all. They give the illusion of progress, or treat the symptoms when the real illness remains unresolved
> people feel like they need to take on this debt to spend 4 years learning (and forgetting) material that they will never use, for degrees that probably won't be relevant to their career. Just to get a slip of paper that says "bachelor's degree". It is trapping people.
My wife and I have this argument frequently and I usually take your position. She likes to point out that college graduates are not just earning more than their less-educated peers, but the income gap has never been wider between young college graduates and those who only finished high school: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/11/the-rising-cost-of...
I think we can all be angry that most colleges don't measure or seem to care whether students are better thinkers by the time they graduate. Too many are interested in funding third-rate research by second-rate academics, too few are interested in pedagogy and making sure their faculty are good teachers. Why is the lecture still the core of university teaching when everything we're discovering about human learning says it's a terrible way to teach anyone anything?
My wife and I have this argument frequently and I usually take your position. She likes to point out that college graduates are not just earning more than their less-educated peers, but the income gap has never been wider between young college graduates and those who only finished high school: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/11/the-rising-cost-of...
I think we can all be angry that most colleges don't measure or seem to care whether students are better thinkers by the time they graduate. Too many are interested in funding third-rate research by second-rate academics, too few are interested in pedagogy and making sure their faculty are good teachers. Why is the lecture still the core of university teaching when everything we're discovering about human learning says it's a terrible way to teach anyone anything?
Looking at the broad stroke (i.e., median income) can be useful, but if I were helping my child make this decision, I wouldn't focus on that. Depending on the career path, income can be highly variable. I also think that these numbers are skewed by the fact that more and more jobs are requiring degrees which didn't before.
I would also argue that degrees should not be required for many of these positions. I mean, a Bachelor's of Hospitality? Restaurant management? Come on, learn that on the job.
I would also argue that degrees should not be required for many of these positions. I mean, a Bachelor's of Hospitality? Restaurant management? Come on, learn that on the job.
The other part I don't like about these conversations is that I still really believe that a good college education isn't about learning a job skill. It's the one time in your life that you can think full-time about life's big questions and devote yourself fully to intellectual curiosity. It's a shame to use that time to learn about restaurant management.
But it's crazy that it costs $50k/year to read great books and discuss them with a small group. It's a crazy price if you're intellectually uncurious and just want to get a job. It's an especially crazy price if you just want to party and grow up a bit before working.
Our society should have room for both vocational schools and big-picture-intellectualism schools. It's part of the reason I'm so excited about developer bootcamps, if only as a model of what adult vocational learning could look like -- shorter time commitment, much lower cost compared to university, and a faculty fully devoted to pedagogy and student outcomes. You should be able to attend a low-cost big-picture-intellectualism school for a while if you want, then learn vocational skills at another school when you're ready to work.
But it's crazy that it costs $50k/year to read great books and discuss them with a small group. It's a crazy price if you're intellectually uncurious and just want to get a job. It's an especially crazy price if you just want to party and grow up a bit before working.
Our society should have room for both vocational schools and big-picture-intellectualism schools. It's part of the reason I'm so excited about developer bootcamps, if only as a model of what adult vocational learning could look like -- shorter time commitment, much lower cost compared to university, and a faculty fully devoted to pedagogy and student outcomes. You should be able to attend a low-cost big-picture-intellectualism school for a while if you want, then learn vocational skills at another school when you're ready to work.
"Our society should have room for both vocational schools and big-picture-intellectualism schools."
Moreover, it should be reasonable for someone to attend both.
Moreover, it should be reasonable for someone to attend both.
Yes, especially when you consider that professors aren't rewarded for being good teachers, they are rewarded (tenure) by spending less time teaching well and more time on research (I apologize if this is redundant with what you have already said). The incentives are all out of whack.
Yeah, just one example: the world doesn't need another paper on symbolism in Ulysses, it needs English professors who help legions of young people become good writers and thinkers. The "research" that's being done by departments outside of the Top 100 -- maybe even the Top 25 -- has an extremely low marginal benefit compared to better educating undergraduates.
[deleted]
I don't think it's fair to call a bachelor's degree a trap. Year after year the data shows you'll make more money if you graduate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/upshot/is-college-worth-it...
The only kids who are trapped are the ones who never finish, no degree and all the debt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/upshot/is-college-worth-it...
The only kids who are trapped are the ones who never finish, no degree and all the debt.
There is the latter group which you mention that is trapped.
But as for studies that show you make more if you graduate, that's only because we have designed the system that way. You can't get many jobs without a bachelor's degree (often times in anything), regardless of whether that four years of education is actually needed. Were the trap is for those people is the lost spending power every monthly student loan payment means for them. It limits what they can do.
I'm all about learning for learning's sake, but the question is whether these degrees are actually worth the artificial price tags we've put on them.
But as for studies that show you make more if you graduate, that's only because we have designed the system that way. You can't get many jobs without a bachelor's degree (often times in anything), regardless of whether that four years of education is actually needed. Were the trap is for those people is the lost spending power every monthly student loan payment means for them. It limits what they can do.
I'm all about learning for learning's sake, but the question is whether these degrees are actually worth the artificial price tags we've put on them.
Went to school for 2 years, taking on $6500 in debt without knowing what it meant. (state school in Oklahoma, so I know that's low end for 2 years) Bad grades (staying up all night hacking around on langages, Linux, you name it, on a used 486 I bought) meant I lost my financial aid, had to get a job to live, so started my IT career doing help desk for regional ISP. 15 months later (early 2000) got my first real programming job, and the rest is history. Still paying off that $6500.
1) It will probably give people who actually can't afford community college the ability to do so. Yes, it's "incredibly cheap in most places", but a penny is still costlier than free.
2) It means people can spend what savings they make from attending community college on tuition, room, and board at a -year, if they go that route. If this program works for longer-term students, that means borrowing less overall.
That reads like progress to me. It certainly doesn't solve the issue, but it does help.
Edited to add: I found this article while Googling around for other stuff: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/uc/2014/04/s... It's not entirely relevant, but it's certainly an interesting counterpoint to your thoughts.
2) It means people can spend what savings they make from attending community college on tuition, room, and board at a -year, if they go that route. If this program works for longer-term students, that means borrowing less overall.
That reads like progress to me. It certainly doesn't solve the issue, but it does help.
Edited to add: I found this article while Googling around for other stuff: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/uc/2014/04/s... It's not entirely relevant, but it's certainly an interesting counterpoint to your thoughts.
1) Grants already exist for those who cannot afford college.
2) The savings you get at a community college are going to get spent in a couple semesters at a regular uni. This goes back, though, to actually dealing with the root problems. Yes, it reduces their borrowing burden, but it should not be necessary.
Thank you for the article.
2) The savings you get at a community college are going to get spent in a couple semesters at a regular uni. This goes back, though, to actually dealing with the root problems. Yes, it reduces their borrowing burden, but it should not be necessary.
Thank you for the article.
> 1) Grants already exist for those who cannot afford college.
The big difference with this proposal is that while it has generally similar kinds of requirements for students as existing grant programs, it has more stringent requirements for the schools and particular degree programs covered. From the fact sheet [0]: "Community colleges will be expected to offer programs that either (1) are academic programs that fully transfer to local public four-year colleges and universities, giving students a chance to earn half of the credit they need for a four-year degree, or (2) are occupational training programs with high graduation rates and that lead to degrees and certificates that are in demand among employers. Other types of programs will not be eligible for free tuition. Colleges must also adopt promising and evidence-based institutional reforms to improve student outcomes, such as the effective Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) programs at the City University of New York which waive tuition, help students pay for books and transit costs, and provide academic advising and supportive scheduling programs to better meet the needs of participating students, resulting in greater gains in college persistence and degree completion."
[0] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/09/fact-s...
The big difference with this proposal is that while it has generally similar kinds of requirements for students as existing grant programs, it has more stringent requirements for the schools and particular degree programs covered. From the fact sheet [0]: "Community colleges will be expected to offer programs that either (1) are academic programs that fully transfer to local public four-year colleges and universities, giving students a chance to earn half of the credit they need for a four-year degree, or (2) are occupational training programs with high graduation rates and that lead to degrees and certificates that are in demand among employers. Other types of programs will not be eligible for free tuition. Colleges must also adopt promising and evidence-based institutional reforms to improve student outcomes, such as the effective Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) programs at the City University of New York which waive tuition, help students pay for books and transit costs, and provide academic advising and supportive scheduling programs to better meet the needs of participating students, resulting in greater gains in college persistence and degree completion."
[0] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/09/fact-s...
> 1) Grants already exist for those who cannot afford college.
If grants were sufficient, would loans exist?
> Yes, it reduces their borrowing burden, but it should not be necessary.
So, in the name of SHOULD, you'd deny people a college education now in order to...
...wait, what are you doing to "deal with the root problems"?
If grants were sufficient, would loans exist?
> Yes, it reduces their borrowing burden, but it should not be necessary.
So, in the name of SHOULD, you'd deny people a college education now in order to...
...wait, what are you doing to "deal with the root problems"?
When the other party controls Congress, presidential proposals without the active involvement of that other party aren't real and aren't intended to or expected to pass. This is just politics.
TFA says Fed currently pays 16%, students pay 30%, and presumably state pays the balance. Under the new program the Fed would pay 75% and states would pay 25%?
Then they have quotes from Tennessee Rep calling it “a top-down federal program that will ask already cash-strapped states to help pick up the tab.” Maybe I'm missing something...
In contrast to the Tennessee program, which is a “last dollar” scholarship, paying only for tuition costs not covered by other programs. A low-income student who is eligible for a maximum Pell Grant of $5,730 would not receive assistance under the Tennessee program, because that amount would already cover tuition."
So in short, need more details but this just doesn't add up. If students already only pay 30% to the Feds 16%, why not just boost the Fed contribution to 25% and call it a day?
Then they have quotes from Tennessee Rep calling it “a top-down federal program that will ask already cash-strapped states to help pick up the tab.” Maybe I'm missing something...
In contrast to the Tennessee program, which is a “last dollar” scholarship, paying only for tuition costs not covered by other programs. A low-income student who is eligible for a maximum Pell Grant of $5,730 would not receive assistance under the Tennessee program, because that amount would already cover tuition."
So in short, need more details but this just doesn't add up. If students already only pay 30% to the Feds 16%, why not just boost the Fed contribution to 25% and call it a day?
Dear Republican Friends,
Don't worry about Obama's community college announcement, it's a great idea.
I mean, clearly the education market is far too competitive as is. With average annual tuition rates of $2,700, who can afford to go to community college I ask you. Clearly, if we remove all competition in the market, that price can only go down, right?
And I shouldn't need to remind you that the teachers unions have clearly shown themselves amenable to keeping education affordable. Putting all power in their hands is a sure-fire play for better education.
Look at the public school teachers in my home-state of Pennsylvania! They're absolute saints, taking in a pathetic $62,000 dollars average per anum, after being short-changed with only a 23% raise in income in the last 10 years. Granted, that was with a Republican governor, so they may have gotten a fair 38% with a Democratic governor, but I think the point stands. They never use their union clout in a way that hurts our students.
And just look at what they did with public middle and high schools! The taxpayers of Washington, DC, for example, are paying a measly $29,000 per pupil, and we all know the high quality of the DC public schools! This is clearly a place where government regulation is needed.
No, don't get upset my friends.
Obama is just looking out for the little guys on this one. This has, I assure you, nothing to do with Obama trying to claim back support from the teachers unions after they started attacking him, quite rightly I must add, for instantiating our evil (Republican) decade-long request that poor schools be given the tools to fire incompetent teachers.
Don't fret, big government loves you.
Don't worry about Obama's community college announcement, it's a great idea.
I mean, clearly the education market is far too competitive as is. With average annual tuition rates of $2,700, who can afford to go to community college I ask you. Clearly, if we remove all competition in the market, that price can only go down, right?
And I shouldn't need to remind you that the teachers unions have clearly shown themselves amenable to keeping education affordable. Putting all power in their hands is a sure-fire play for better education.
Look at the public school teachers in my home-state of Pennsylvania! They're absolute saints, taking in a pathetic $62,000 dollars average per anum, after being short-changed with only a 23% raise in income in the last 10 years. Granted, that was with a Republican governor, so they may have gotten a fair 38% with a Democratic governor, but I think the point stands. They never use their union clout in a way that hurts our students.
And just look at what they did with public middle and high schools! The taxpayers of Washington, DC, for example, are paying a measly $29,000 per pupil, and we all know the high quality of the DC public schools! This is clearly a place where government regulation is needed.
No, don't get upset my friends.
Obama is just looking out for the little guys on this one. This has, I assure you, nothing to do with Obama trying to claim back support from the teachers unions after they started attacking him, quite rightly I must add, for instantiating our evil (Republican) decade-long request that poor schools be given the tools to fire incompetent teachers.
Don't fret, big government loves you.
>And I shouldn't need to remind you that the teachers unions have clearly shown themselves amenable to keeping education affordable. Putting all power in their hands is a sure-fire play for better education.
Community college professors aren't generally unionized. They're definable not part of public school teachers unions your talking about.
Community college professors aren't generally unionized. They're definable not part of public school teachers unions your talking about.
> after being short-changed with only a 23% raise in income in the last 10 years
Inflation has been ~40% in the same period you know...
Inflation has been ~40% in the same period you know...
I'm all for education, but so much of what passes for it is pure nonsense (IMHOP).
And I'm not sure taxpayers ought to pay for, nor encourage, nonsense. That's what parents are for. They have an incentive to say "no" after a bit.
Maybe cleaning up the "educational" system a little might be a better first step. This program could simply be an expensive way (for taxpayers) to have a bunch of semi-bored kids half studying the sociology of Amish Lesbians while claiming they are getting a useful eduction.
(this comment is not intended to offend Lesbians, Sociologists, The Amish, nor Semi-Bored kids... it's just that there is so much nonsense in schools.....I'd be all for the program if it was free math classes only.)
This just seems like a pork barrel type thing for some groups, without achieving the stated objective of eduction.
And I'm not sure taxpayers ought to pay for, nor encourage, nonsense. That's what parents are for. They have an incentive to say "no" after a bit.
Maybe cleaning up the "educational" system a little might be a better first step. This program could simply be an expensive way (for taxpayers) to have a bunch of semi-bored kids half studying the sociology of Amish Lesbians while claiming they are getting a useful eduction.
(this comment is not intended to offend Lesbians, Sociologists, The Amish, nor Semi-Bored kids... it's just that there is so much nonsense in schools.....I'd be all for the program if it was free math classes only.)
This just seems like a pork barrel type thing for some groups, without achieving the stated objective of eduction.
Most community colleges don't offer anything as specialized as Survey of Late 20th Century Post-Grunge Tribal Tattoos.
Community colleges usually just take care of general education classes--like English Composition, College Algebra, Calculus, and History.
I'm sure there are some nonsense classes, but there isn't much room for specialization in a 2 year degree.
Community colleges usually just take care of general education classes--like English Composition, College Algebra, Calculus, and History.
I'm sure there are some nonsense classes, but there isn't much room for specialization in a 2 year degree.
http://nypost.com/2014/01/30/rutgers-university-offers-class...
I'm sure you are mostly correct. My concern is that given free subsistence, I believe the plague of nonsense will grow. I also believe that paying for something is a way to give it value to those who pay. I don't see high school being very highly valued by most kids. And their valuation is probably not far from fair either.
This article does very well at summing up some of my observations...
http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2734
I'm sure you are mostly correct. My concern is that given free subsistence, I believe the plague of nonsense will grow. I also believe that paying for something is a way to give it value to those who pay. I don't see high school being very highly valued by most kids. And their valuation is probably not far from fair either.
This article does very well at summing up some of my observations...
http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2734
Community College absolutely transformed me and many of my (at the time) classmate's lives.
In my case I grew up poor, without much opportunity, and the (again, at the time) dirt cheap rates, open admission and guaranteed transfer to a local 4-year gave me opportunity I absolutely didn't have in the few years before I got sick and tired of the dead-end shitty hourly part-time jobs I could get.
Many of my classmates were immigrants and refugees, there to learn English, or get started in their new lives. Now, many years later, they're happy productive citizens, married, with families, working six figure jobs...easily paying off each year what they're entire community college education cost any sort of taxpayer subsidies. Most of them have gone on to get M.S. and even a couple of PhDs.
The doors to get into higher education don't admit everybody equally, but sometimes you can get into other doors if you're willing to go in the side entrance. On the other side, I've worked pretty consistently with people who went to much more highly ranked schools than I did, or came from better pedigrees, and we've all ended up in the same place.
Bonus: my entire college education, from Freshman through my M.S. cost about what a reasonable family sedan cost, and raised my marketability so much that I paid it all off by the time I finished school. I hear of peers, decades later, still paying hundreds of dollars a month on insane student loans, and I feel really lucky to have stumbled into the path I ended up on...despite a little pride swallowing.
In my case I grew up poor, without much opportunity, and the (again, at the time) dirt cheap rates, open admission and guaranteed transfer to a local 4-year gave me opportunity I absolutely didn't have in the few years before I got sick and tired of the dead-end shitty hourly part-time jobs I could get.
Many of my classmates were immigrants and refugees, there to learn English, or get started in their new lives. Now, many years later, they're happy productive citizens, married, with families, working six figure jobs...easily paying off each year what they're entire community college education cost any sort of taxpayer subsidies. Most of them have gone on to get M.S. and even a couple of PhDs.
The doors to get into higher education don't admit everybody equally, but sometimes you can get into other doors if you're willing to go in the side entrance. On the other side, I've worked pretty consistently with people who went to much more highly ranked schools than I did, or came from better pedigrees, and we've all ended up in the same place.
Bonus: my entire college education, from Freshman through my M.S. cost about what a reasonable family sedan cost, and raised my marketability so much that I paid it all off by the time I finished school. I hear of peers, decades later, still paying hundreds of dollars a month on insane student loans, and I feel really lucky to have stumbled into the path I ended up on...despite a little pride swallowing.
Since I'll probably get more than a few downvotes for my main comment below, I'll start by saying that I adjunct teach software development at our local CC, even though the pay (if you calculate it on a 'per hour' basis) is way less than my 'real' job. Adjuncts get screwed, but I enjoy teaching, and appreciate the opportunities that CC gives to students ... I just wanted to frame my comment so that you understand my perspective.
Now, on to the part that's going to get me into trouble: I completely and totally disagree with the idea of letting students attend CC without paying.
Many students coming into CC, even when they are responsible for part of the tuition (which at most current CCs is only about 30%), struggle to find motivation to work hard on their classes and finish them. Although some students surely would benefit from 'free' college (I put it in quotes because nothing is free -- the rest of us will be paying for it), I do not think that offering free CC is a good use of taxpayer money. Simply put, CC is already heavily subsidized, and I think that if the students have no skin in it at all they'll be less motivated to succeed, which doesn't do anyone any favors.
Additionally, for those students who do try, and who do succeed, the potential return will GREATLY eclipse their investment (as you noted). For these students, it is once again totally unnecessary to subsidize tuition because their increased income will more than offset the cost of their education.
Now, on to the part that's going to get me into trouble: I completely and totally disagree with the idea of letting students attend CC without paying.
Many students coming into CC, even when they are responsible for part of the tuition (which at most current CCs is only about 30%), struggle to find motivation to work hard on their classes and finish them. Although some students surely would benefit from 'free' college (I put it in quotes because nothing is free -- the rest of us will be paying for it), I do not think that offering free CC is a good use of taxpayer money. Simply put, CC is already heavily subsidized, and I think that if the students have no skin in it at all they'll be less motivated to succeed, which doesn't do anyone any favors.
Additionally, for those students who do try, and who do succeed, the potential return will GREATLY eclipse their investment (as you noted). For these students, it is once again totally unnecessary to subsidize tuition because their increased income will more than offset the cost of their education.
Not downvoting, there's a legitamate concern about skin in the game mentality. But that's not how it is now. People take on debt by signing a piece of paper, they have no idea what that amount really means until they start paying it off. College loans are too easy to get, 20k here, 40k there, don't start paying until 4 years after. At 18 years old, how many students have experience struggling with interest payments that would take up almost all their disposable income?
Another thing is the peer pressure to attend college from an early age. Those that don't qualify for top tier schools settle for 2nd and 3rd choices, sometime state schools, other times private colleges that are basically degree mills charging 30k/yr.
Another thing is the peer pressure to attend college from an early age. Those that don't qualify for top tier schools settle for 2nd and 3rd choices, sometime state schools, other times private colleges that are basically degree mills charging 30k/yr.
I actually agree with you. I also saw my fair share of folks who were not in the frame of mind to appreciate the incredible opportunity they were given. They were looking at CC as a place where only dumb kids go, or that they were better than where they were or were just looking for a place to hang out and meet people to party.
I think that people should be paying something to go. But not too much.
I've also observed that people who couldn't normally afford CC monetarily also can't really afford it timewise. They're already working 2 jobs or whatever. And the kind of time commitment education requires simply isn't possible.
What concerns me also is the continued rise in CC tuition (along with other tuition at other schools). CC works because it's cheap and it's real college. But once the prices start to rise to real college levels, it stops working.
I think when I went it was something like $50/crhr. It's well over $150 right now (out of state is over $350). I would not be able to send myself to CC today if I was in the same position.
I think that people should be paying something to go. But not too much.
I've also observed that people who couldn't normally afford CC monetarily also can't really afford it timewise. They're already working 2 jobs or whatever. And the kind of time commitment education requires simply isn't possible.
What concerns me also is the continued rise in CC tuition (along with other tuition at other schools). CC works because it's cheap and it's real college. But once the prices start to rise to real college levels, it stops working.
I think when I went it was something like $50/crhr. It's well over $150 right now (out of state is over $350). I would not be able to send myself to CC today if I was in the same position.
FWIW even in a standard university ~20 years ago I saw an enormous difference in motivation levels between students who were really paying for themselves (as in they were fronting money every semester) vs. those who were not (or it was all funny money at the time which they'd pay years later).
I had a few friends in school who transferred in from CC. They weren't in CC because they were poor students (quite the opposite!) but simply because that's all they could afford, and this provided an opportunity to work towards greater scholarships and such to supplement their jobs and allow them to go to the 4-year. These were the most motivated students I came across in my time.
I had a few friends in school who transferred in from CC. They weren't in CC because they were poor students (quite the opposite!) but simply because that's all they could afford, and this provided an opportunity to work towards greater scholarships and such to supplement their jobs and allow them to go to the 4-year. These were the most motivated students I came across in my time.
> I think that if the students have no skin in it at all they'll be less motivated to succeed, which doesn't do anyone any favors.
How can you put something at risk for people who don't have anything to risk?
How can you put something at risk for people who don't have anything to risk?
Agreeing with this. I went through the TAFE system in Australia with my tuition covered by the a low income youth support program provided by the government (Centrelink at the time) and then university (although i never graduated).
I would not be who i am today if TAFE was not affordable for me and the luxury of being able to wait for the right opportunity (as i had no pressure from a debt to take anything less than ideal) meant I ended up starting a business that really kick started my career.
I would not be who i am today if TAFE was not affordable for me and the luxury of being able to wait for the right opportunity (as i had no pressure from a debt to take anything less than ideal) meant I ended up starting a business that really kick started my career.
TAFE Queensland + QUT for me.
It's really nice to see there are others from a C.C. background. For some reason I thought I was the only one (coming into this community I thought everyone went to Stanford, CMU, MIT, etc).
I finished high school with chemistry, physics, and precalculus courses at Hudson Valley Community College in Troy, NY. That helped get me into my honors undergrad at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I'm currently a grad-student near to finishing my MSc at Technion, the Israel Institute of Technology. I can now hope to apply to certain PhD programs at MIT that I'm excited about, if my adviser here likes me enough to recommend me and I study a bunch more math on my own.
Community colleges are awesome.
Community colleges are awesome.
Most of my friends in high school went to top-tier schools while I shipped over to the local community college. A lack of college-mindedness, arguably. I ended up transferring, but I'm extremely pleased with the education I got there.
I hate that the federal government is getting involved. The states are figuring it out. Leave this alone... Vote for local politicians to follow the Tennessee model or don't. There is no need for federal involvement.
Going state-by-state is going to take decades. The 'laboratories of democracy' thing is extremely overrated, oftentimes you just end up with 51 hills to climb. 'That may work for them over in _____, but it's not how we do things in ______!' It's not like US politicians (or voters) are famed for their analytical rigor and intolerance for logical/rhetorical fallacies.
And federal programs take effect quicker, but trying to balance the realities and concerns of all 50 states, and getting enough politicians and special interests on board results in bloated systems that are easier to abuse.
I went to Bellevue Community College in 1992, right after high school, and was fortunate enough to take part in their nascent "Multimedia Design" program. Considering the neighborhood, we had software and support from a lot of the local tech companies. I got to use early versions of Director, Photoshop, even Linux, which definitely set me on a more productive path with computers. I ended up going to a University the following year, but that was due to other circumstances and not that I didn't find the school and the education I received there valuable. Indeed, it very much set me on my path.
Macroeconomically, a program like this would have made more sense at a time of low-growth/high-unemployment, like a few years ago. (It might work best as a countercyclical program: when many people are idle, subsidize skills-building education, but as unemployment drops, expect people to pay their own tuition or learn-on-the-job instead.)
I would actually go farther and say we should merge the current K-12 into 11 years instead of 13, and make every student complete an associate degree by the age of 18.
The current system of K-12, especially in the US, has always been way too padded. The advent of the internet and readily available educational materials has accelerated this exponentially. A child born today would be shocked to hear that I learned C++ by driving to a far away building and checking out a dead tree with ink on it. That same child should be equally shocked that we can't expect him to learn actively at home and in the classroom faster than his grandparents did, who had a sliver of the access to information of modern generations.
I saw first hand what this could look like. My parents were not affluent enough to send me to a private school, but they were affluent enough to move to a area in New Jersey with a very well-funded public school system. We had a sister community college that had a great reputation, and as a option for upperclassmen who skipped grades or took courses early, they could drive the community college and take classes instead. We actually had one student my senior year who got an Associate Degree before his High School degree.
Personally I took 2 summer math classes and 2 programming classes at this college, and the difference between the CC and High School was stark.
- Professors didn't have to babysit: If you acted out, you got kicked out. No discussion.
- You self-selected to other like-minded individuals who were both interested and aggressive about learning the material in the class.
- Teachers could actually teach without dealing with school board restrictions or materials.
- Funding policies actually made sense since the entity managing them wasn't completely government run.
- You could treat the students like adults, and not have to worry about discussing controversial material, or that a parent would helicopter in and threaten to sue the school.
This whole process made me a lot more excited for college. It also showed me there was so much more material out there than what I thought about in High School. I think this process should be funded, and eventually mandatory, otherwise the US will find itself behind.
I remember a Star Trek TNG episode (I can't recall the number) where a parent was chasing a 10-yo child for skipping class. The child complained casually that he didn't want to learn Calculus. We may never get that far for every child, but I dream of a world where a brilliant 10-yo could get that far if he wanted to.
Part II.
To continue my rant, I actually think the Obama Administration is smart in how it is executing on this issue.
In the US, the execution of compulsory education happens at the state and local level. Local governments get to decide how "important" education is to them, specifically with their budgets. On the plus side, this helps us avoid the (potentially republic-damaging) process of convincing 316 million people that the federal government is the best entity to handle child education (and create a massive bureaucracy to boot). On the downside, as a country we are dropping the ball in preparing the next generation to be solid competitors in the global marketplace.
When this problem last came up it was during the cold war, specifically after Sputnik launched. There was a massive, national push to make more students in tune with modern education, which resulted in the passing of the National Defense Education Act [1]. Basically, it required a existential crisis in order to motivate the US to seriously fund education nationally.
Now, 50 years later, I'm continually blown away when I discuss education with my colleagues who grew up abroad. In European (especially ex-soviet bloc) countries, India, and Asia, education is significantly more rigorous and highly valued, which results in a significantly more prepared workforce.
I like, or hope, to think that in case the Obama Administration sees the same thing. Specifically:
- We are now 17th in global education ranking [2], and even lower in Math and Science [3]
- In the rapidly globalizing economy, this gap in education is now a national security issue
- Other up-and-coming economies all have much deeper cultural values for educations, with a national government that reflects it.
- Federalizing the system (ala West Wing Season 7) is too drastic, and will never pass congress anyway
- Our one massive advantage, our higher education system (which is the envy of the world), specifically the relatively affordable community colleges, is being underutilized.
By taking federal funding and pumping it into a solution that is reasonably affordable, partially shared with the states, and bypass the State and local governments, we are essentially doing what educational reformers have always dreamed we could do: Fund education like we do the military.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Education_Act
[2] http://www.ibtimes.com/us-17th-global-education-ranking-finl...
[3] http://www.businessinsider.com/pisa-rankings-2013-12
The current system of K-12, especially in the US, has always been way too padded. The advent of the internet and readily available educational materials has accelerated this exponentially. A child born today would be shocked to hear that I learned C++ by driving to a far away building and checking out a dead tree with ink on it. That same child should be equally shocked that we can't expect him to learn actively at home and in the classroom faster than his grandparents did, who had a sliver of the access to information of modern generations.
I saw first hand what this could look like. My parents were not affluent enough to send me to a private school, but they were affluent enough to move to a area in New Jersey with a very well-funded public school system. We had a sister community college that had a great reputation, and as a option for upperclassmen who skipped grades or took courses early, they could drive the community college and take classes instead. We actually had one student my senior year who got an Associate Degree before his High School degree.
Personally I took 2 summer math classes and 2 programming classes at this college, and the difference between the CC and High School was stark.
- Professors didn't have to babysit: If you acted out, you got kicked out. No discussion.
- You self-selected to other like-minded individuals who were both interested and aggressive about learning the material in the class.
- Teachers could actually teach without dealing with school board restrictions or materials.
- Funding policies actually made sense since the entity managing them wasn't completely government run.
- You could treat the students like adults, and not have to worry about discussing controversial material, or that a parent would helicopter in and threaten to sue the school.
This whole process made me a lot more excited for college. It also showed me there was so much more material out there than what I thought about in High School. I think this process should be funded, and eventually mandatory, otherwise the US will find itself behind.
I remember a Star Trek TNG episode (I can't recall the number) where a parent was chasing a 10-yo child for skipping class. The child complained casually that he didn't want to learn Calculus. We may never get that far for every child, but I dream of a world where a brilliant 10-yo could get that far if he wanted to.
Part II.
To continue my rant, I actually think the Obama Administration is smart in how it is executing on this issue.
In the US, the execution of compulsory education happens at the state and local level. Local governments get to decide how "important" education is to them, specifically with their budgets. On the plus side, this helps us avoid the (potentially republic-damaging) process of convincing 316 million people that the federal government is the best entity to handle child education (and create a massive bureaucracy to boot). On the downside, as a country we are dropping the ball in preparing the next generation to be solid competitors in the global marketplace.
When this problem last came up it was during the cold war, specifically after Sputnik launched. There was a massive, national push to make more students in tune with modern education, which resulted in the passing of the National Defense Education Act [1]. Basically, it required a existential crisis in order to motivate the US to seriously fund education nationally.
Now, 50 years later, I'm continually blown away when I discuss education with my colleagues who grew up abroad. In European (especially ex-soviet bloc) countries, India, and Asia, education is significantly more rigorous and highly valued, which results in a significantly more prepared workforce.
I like, or hope, to think that in case the Obama Administration sees the same thing. Specifically:
- We are now 17th in global education ranking [2], and even lower in Math and Science [3]
- In the rapidly globalizing economy, this gap in education is now a national security issue
- Other up-and-coming economies all have much deeper cultural values for educations, with a national government that reflects it.
- Federalizing the system (ala West Wing Season 7) is too drastic, and will never pass congress anyway
- Our one massive advantage, our higher education system (which is the envy of the world), specifically the relatively affordable community colleges, is being underutilized.
By taking federal funding and pumping it into a solution that is reasonably affordable, partially shared with the states, and bypass the State and local governments, we are essentially doing what educational reformers have always dreamed we could do: Fund education like we do the military.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Education_Act
[2] http://www.ibtimes.com/us-17th-global-education-ranking-finl...
[3] http://www.businessinsider.com/pisa-rankings-2013-12
America has been forsaking our commitment to public higher education for decades now. If we're going to finally start investing again, community colleges are a great place to begin.