Free Community College

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't have the determination to pay for your own education you shouldn't be getting one

This is RIDICULOUS!! I'm only 45. My college tuition was $8,000 when I started and $11,000 when I finished. I went to a small liberal arts college. For the same pleasure, I will be paying about $50,000 for my son who graduates in 2 years.

Hello - who can pay that? Would he work minimum wage for that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Universal access devaluates education. 4-year college used to mean something. Now it means nothing. PP is right, garbage in, garbage out.

It needs to be MUCH more competitive (based on merit).

I assume that you mean it "devalues" education. I could not agree more. Buying into the notion that college is only for the rich or "very smart" is a slick way of saying that you want to limit opportunities to certain types of people. IMO, that would only worsen the income gap that is currently growing. If you think the middle class is in danger now, then just wait.

Besides that, community colleges are not 4 year colleges. Also, community colleges are the primary providers of vocational education and occupational certifications in the country. Not everyone who is going to a CC is pursuing a 4 year degree. So, if you make the 4 year colleges more competitive, what do you do with those that don't make the cut? Highly likely that those folks would attend CC to try to create opportunities for themselves. I am just not in favor of any plan that makes it HARDER for people to educate themselves.

You should assume English is a foreign language for me, but thank you for educating me.

I don't want to limit opportunities. I want to be realistic about everyone's limitations. Not everybody is cut out to be in a highly intellectual field. We also have limited demand for mid-range paper pushers. Our corrent policies result in oversupply of semi-educated people who still resort to menial jobs. Yet those who can pursue meaningful education are stuck with an even higher price tag, because the market forces them to go for advanced degrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Universal access devaluates education. 4-year college used to mean something. Now it means nothing. PP is right, garbage in, garbage out.

It needs to be MUCH more competitive (based on merit).

I assume that you mean it "devalues" education. I could not agree more. Buying into the notion that college is only for the rich or "very smart" is a slick way of saying that you want to limit opportunities to certain types of people. IMO, that would only worsen the income gap that is currently growing. If you think the middle class is in danger now, then just wait.

Besides that, community colleges are not 4 year colleges. Also, community colleges are the primary providers of vocational education and occupational certifications in the country. Not everyone who is going to a CC is pursuing a 4 year degree. So, if you make the 4 year colleges more competitive, what do you do with those that don't make the cut? Highly likely that those folks would attend CC to try to create opportunities for themselves. I am just not in favor of any plan that makes it HARDER for people to educate themselves.

You should assume English is a foreign language for me, but thank you for educating me.

I don't want to limit opportunities. I want to be realistic about everyone's limitations. Not everybody is cut out to be in a highly intellectual field. We also have limited demand for mid-range paper pushers. Our corrent policies result in oversupply of semi-educated people who still resort to menial jobs. Yet those who can pursue meaningful education are stuck with an even higher price tag, because the market forces them to go for advanced degrees.

Ok... but we are talking about community colleges (2 year colleges) and I think that your argument ignores the demographics of the people that are currently and traditionally being educated at community colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the govt should provide free all day preschool for all before this. It would be great for the children, help working women, and help the middle and lower income families.

The college price tags are insane and the prices need to be reduced. That said, our government should look at the pre-k education funding.

Naw. You have kids, you figure out how to care for them. College is in investment in the future. Not the government's responsibility to provide child care. Best child care is mommy anyway.

[Anonymous]

Why shouldn't the U.S. extend this benefit to all of Mexico?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why shouldn't the U.S. extend this benefit to all of Mexico?

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Universal access devaluates education. 4-year college used to mean something. Now it means nothing. PP is right, garbage in, garbage out.

It needs to be MUCH more competitive (based on merit).

I assume that you mean it "devalues" education. I could not agree more. Buying into the notion that college is only for the rich or "very smart" is a slick way of saying that you want to limit opportunities to certain types of people. IMO, that would only worsen the income gap that is currently growing. If you think the middle class is in danger now, then just wait.

Besides that, community colleges are not 4 year colleges. Also, community colleges are the primary providers of vocational education and occupational certifications in the country. Not everyone who is going to a CC is pursuing a 4 year degree. So, if you make the 4 year colleges more competitive, what do you do with those that don't make the cut? Highly likely that those folks would attend CC to try to create opportunities for themselves. I am just not in favor of any plan that makes it HARDER for people to educate themselves.

You should assume English is a foreign language for me, but thank you for educating me.

I don't want to limit opportunities. I want to be realistic about everyone's limitations. Not everybody is cut out to be in a highly intellectual field. We also have limited demand for mid-range paper pushers. Our corrent policies result in oversupply of semi-educated people who still resort to menial jobs. Yet those who can pursue meaningful education are stuck with an even higher price tag, because the market forces them to go for advanced degrees.

Ok... but we are talking about community colleges (2 year colleges) and I think that your argument ignores the demographics of the people that are currently and traditionally being educated at community colleges.

I don't see how my argument ignores the (changing) demographic. The same principle applies whether we're talking about 2 or 4-year colleges.

Think about it this way. There are many online resources that are 100% free. Classes (oftentimes guided, i.e. with a human instructor checking in and providing feedback) are available in a wide variety of subjects. Still, what is the market value of this education? Another example is the infamous University of Phoenix (or any similar institution). Seeing it on resumes makes hiring managers laugh. It is not fair, because I do believe people out in time, money and effort on getting their MBAs. But in the real world it's not worth anything. I would hate to see CCs be devalued even more. What do you think will happen with all the kids who were counting on CCs to save money as opposed to the 4-year college route? What good will it do if good schools stop accepting CCs' credits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Universal access devaluates education. 4-year college used to mean something. Now it means nothing. PP is right, garbage in, garbage out.

It needs to be MUCH more competitive (based on merit).

I assume that you mean it "devalues" education. I could not agree more. Buying into the notion that college is only for the rich or "very smart" is a slick way of saying that you want to limit opportunities to certain types of people. IMO, that would only worsen the income gap that is currently growing. If you think the middle class is in danger now, then just wait.

Besides that, community colleges are not 4 year colleges. Also, community colleges are the primary providers of vocational education and occupational certifications in the country. Not everyone who is going to a CC is pursuing a 4 year degree. So, if you make the 4 year colleges more competitive, what do you do with those that don't make the cut? Highly likely that those folks would attend CC to try to create opportunities for themselves. I am just not in favor of any plan that makes it HARDER for people to educate themselves.

You should assume English is a foreign language for me, but thank you for educating me.

I don't want to limit opportunities. I want to be realistic about everyone's limitations. Not everybody is cut out to be in a highly intellectual field. We also have limited demand for mid-range paper pushers. Our corrent policies result in oversupply of semi-educated people who still resort to menial jobs. Yet those who can pursue meaningful education are stuck with an even higher price tag, because the market forces them to go for advanced degrees.

Ok... but we are talking about community colleges (2 year colleges) and I think that your argument ignores the demographics of the people that are currently and traditionally being educated at community colleges.

I don't see how my argument ignores the (changing) demographic. The same principle applies whether we're talking about 2 or 4-year colleges.

Think about it this way. There are many online resources that are 100% free. Classes (oftentimes guided, i.e. with a human instructor checking in and providing feedback) are available in a wide variety of subjects. Still, what is the market value of this education? Another example is the infamous University of Phoenix (or any similar institution). Seeing it on resumes makes hiring managers laugh. It is not fair, because I do believe people out in time, money and effort on getting their MBAs. But in the real world it's not worth anything. I would hate to see CCs be devalued even more. What do you think will happen with all the kids who were counting on CCs to save money as opposed to the 4-year college route? What good will it do if good schools stop accepting CCs' credits?

I understand your point but once again, you have to look at your CC student demographic. High concentration of vocational students. High concentration of students who are only seeking an associates degree related to an occupational certification. High concentration of working students, including working parents. And sure, there are some students who use it as a bridge to a 4 year school because of cost and academic immaturity. Your contention seems to imply that some sort of free CC program will increase the number of folks who try to use it as a bridge to a 4 year program - whether those folks are academically inclined or not. I do not agree. I think that you may get some kids who get on the college track, but I think that most of increase will be students who attend for the vocational and occupational programs that are not offered at most colleges (but are offered at those "fly by night" private insanely expensive vocational colleges). Just my opinion though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Universal access devaluates education. 4-year college used to mean something. Now it means nothing. PP is right, garbage in, garbage out.

It needs to be MUCH more competitive (based on merit).

I assume that you mean it "devalues" education. I could not agree more. Buying into the notion that college is only for the rich or "very smart" is a slick way of saying that you want to limit opportunities to certain types of people. IMO, that would only worsen the income gap that is currently growing. If you think the middle class is in danger now, then just wait.

Besides that, community colleges are not 4 year colleges. Also, community colleges are the primary providers of vocational education and occupational certifications in the country. Not everyone who is going to a CC is pursuing a 4 year degree. So, if you make the 4 year colleges more competitive, what do you do with those that don't make the cut? Highly likely that those folks would attend CC to try to create opportunities for themselves. I am just not in favor of any plan that makes it HARDER for people to educate themselves.

You should assume English is a foreign language for me, but thank you for educating me.

I don't want to limit opportunities. I want to be realistic about everyone's limitations. Not everybody is cut out to be in a highly intellectual field. We also have limited demand for mid-range paper pushers. Our corrent policies result in oversupply of semi-educated people who still resort to menial jobs. Yet those who can pursue meaningful education are stuck with an even higher price tag, because the market forces them to go for advanced degrees.

Ok... but we are talking about community colleges (2 year colleges) and I think that your argument ignores the demographics of the people that are currently and traditionally being educated at community colleges.

I don't see how my argument ignores the (changing) demographic. The same principle applies whether we're talking about 2 or 4-year colleges.

Think about it this way. There are many online resources that are 100% free. Classes (oftentimes guided, i.e. with a human instructor checking in and providing feedback) are available in a wide variety of subjects. Still, what is the market value of this education? Another example is the infamous University of Phoenix (or any similar institution). Seeing it on resumes makes hiring managers laugh. It is not fair, because I do believe people out in time, money and effort on getting their MBAs. But in the real world it's not worth anything. I would hate to see CCs be devalued even more. What do you think will happen with all the kids who were counting on CCs to save money as opposed to the 4-year college route? What good will it do if good schools stop accepting CCs' credits?

I understand your point but once again, you have to look at your CC student demographic. High concentration of vocational students. High concentration of students who are only seeking an associates degree related to an occupational certification. High concentration of working students, including working parents. And sure, there are some students who use it as a bridge to a 4 year school because of cost and academic immaturity. Your contention seems to imply that some sort of free CC program will increase the number of folks who try to use it as a bridge to a 4 year program - whether those folks are academically inclined or not. I do not agree. I think that you may get some kids who get on the college track, but I think that most of increase will be students who attend for the vocational and occupational programs that are not offered at most colleges (but are offered at those "fly by night" private insanely expensive vocational colleges). Just my opinion though.

I'm all for vocational training to be widely available. However, I do think we should spend public money wisely, i.e. on those who demonstrated both initiative and ability to succeed in academic environments. This is how all "free" educational systems work: tuition is afforadable to non-existent, while entrance exams are quite stringent. You can't give everything to everybody, so rationing in some form is inevitable. Why not make it merit-based?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Universal access devaluates education. 4-year college used to mean something. Now it means nothing. PP is right, garbage in, garbage out.

It needs to be MUCH more competitive (based on merit).

I assume that you mean it "devalues" education. I could not agree more. Buying into the notion that college is only for the rich or "very smart" is a slick way of saying that you want to limit opportunities to certain types of people. IMO, that would only worsen the income gap that is currently growing. If you think the middle class is in danger now, then just wait.

Besides that, community colleges are not 4 year colleges. Also, community colleges are the primary providers of vocational education and occupational certifications in the country. Not everyone who is going to a CC is pursuing a 4 year degree. So, if you make the 4 year colleges more competitive, what do you do with those that don't make the cut? Highly likely that those folks would attend CC to try to create opportunities for themselves. I am just not in favor of any plan that makes it HARDER for people to educate themselves.

You should assume English is a foreign language for me, but thank you for educating me.

I don't want to limit opportunities. I want to be realistic about everyone's limitations. Not everybody is cut out to be in a highly intellectual field. We also have limited demand for mid-range paper pushers. Our corrent policies result in oversupply of semi-educated people who still resort to menial jobs. Yet those who can pursue meaningful education are stuck with an even higher price tag, because the market forces them to go for advanced degrees.

Ok... but we are talking about community colleges (2 year colleges) and I think that your argument ignores the demographics of the people that are currently and traditionally being educated at community colleges.

I don't see how my argument ignores the (changing) demographic. The same principle applies whether we're talking about 2 or 4-year colleges.

Think about it this way. There are many online resources that are 100% free. Classes (oftentimes guided, i.e. with a human instructor checking in and providing feedback) are available in a wide variety of subjects. Still, what is the market value of this education? Another example is the infamous University of Phoenix (or any similar institution). Seeing it on resumes makes hiring managers laugh. It is not fair, because I do believe people out in time, money and effort on getting their MBAs. But in the real world it's not worth anything. I would hate to see CCs be devalued even more. What do you think will happen with all the kids who were counting on CCs to save money as opposed to the 4-year college route? What good will it do if good schools stop accepting CCs' credits?

I understand your point but once again, you have to look at your CC student demographic. High concentration of vocational students. High concentration of students who are only seeking an associates degree related to an occupational certification. High concentration of working students, including working parents. And sure, there are some students who use it as a bridge to a 4 year school because of cost and academic immaturity. Your contention seems to imply that some sort of free CC program will increase the number of folks who try to use it as a bridge to a 4 year program - whether those folks are academically inclined or not. I do not agree. I think that you may get some kids who get on the college track, but I think that most of increase will be students who attend for the vocational and occupational programs that are not offered at most colleges (but are offered at those "fly by night" private insanely expensive vocational colleges). Just my opinion though.

I'm all for vocational training to be widely available. However, I do think we should spend public money wisely, i.e. on those who demonstrated both initiative and ability to succeed in academic environments. This is how all "free" educational systems work: tuition is afforadable to non-existent, while entrance exams are quite stringent. You can't give everything to everybody, so rationing in some form is inevitable. Why not make it merit-based?

Well, I think it depends on the chosen field of study. I don't care that the guy fixing my HVAC showed the ability to succeed in an "academic environment" the same as a guy who wants to be a research physicist. I just want him to show the apptitude in the field he is choosing. Let me give you an example of where I think we may think similarly. My HS son is in a IT vocational program through Montogomery County Public Schools. If he successfully completes the curriculum then he is automatically admitted to the continuation program at Montgomery College (the community college). So from a "merit" standpoint, you could argue that if he completes the feeder program then he "deserves" admission more than someone who didn't. So I understand your position in that context. But most community colleges have an open enrollment component NOW - so would you change that in a free program? I guess what I am asking is whether you change the whole model of community college education just because you make it free to students? And doesn't doing that cancel out the entire reason for making it free in the first place - access?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's the greatest idea in the world! Jefferson said in essense that a well educated population is fundamental to having a successful democracy. During the greatest eras in American economic growth were also when the US had the most well educated and literate populations.

At present only 30% of Americans have four year college degrees or high. Education is the key to upward social mobility. Many students either can't afford college, are afraid of taking on debt, or ill prepared for the academic rigors of the first year of traditional college. Some students take no AP classes in high school. Now send them after graduation from high school straight to freshman year of college where they are expected to take the equivalent of five AP courses during their first semester. It's a recipe for disaster. That's why 50% of students entering college quit before ever receiving a Bachelors Degree.

There should be no negative stigma, attached to community colleges. For some it's financial and for others it's a more gradual step into college level academics.

It's an expense we tax payers can easily bear. Secondly a well educated workforce will create greater individual and national wealth translating into a broader tax base. It's a win-win concept all the way around.

Most every polytechnical university in the country was founded by corporate leaders who realized there were too few trained engineers and business managers available to run their companies. They invested in education and created the well educated workforce they needed to remain profitable.

There is no better investment we can make with our tax dollars than free community college educations for all.

Most colleges are just an extension of high school. Morons in, morons out.

That's a moronic view of your life; not mine.

The GI Bill after WWII allowed hundreds thousand of GIs to attend and graduate from college. The WWII generation created more wealth than any other generation before it. Some people are naturally brilliant or creative and they are able to attain great wealth or simple satisfaction without a formal education, however for the vast majority of people the path to upward mobility is paved with higher education.

Free Community Colleges for liberal arts or occupational trades would benefit individuals and the nation as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Universal access devaluates education. 4-year college used to mean something. Now it means nothing. PP is right, garbage in, garbage out.

It needs to be MUCH more competitive (based on merit).

I assume that you mean it "devalues" education. I could not agree more. Buying into the notion that college is only for the rich or "very smart" is a slick way of saying that you want to limit opportunities to certain types of people. IMO, that would only worsen the income gap that is currently growing. If you think the middle class is in danger now, then just wait.

Besides that, community colleges are not 4 year colleges. Also, community colleges are the primary providers of vocational education and occupational certifications in the country. Not everyone who is going to a CC is pursuing a 4 year degree. So, if you make the 4 year colleges more competitive, what do you do with those that don't make the cut? Highly likely that those folks would attend CC to try to create opportunities for themselves. I am just not in favor of any plan that makes it HARDER for people to educate themselves.

You should assume English is a foreign language for me, but thank you for educating me.

I don't want to limit opportunities. I want to be realistic about everyone's limitations. Not everybody is cut out to be in a highly intellectual field. We also have limited demand for mid-range paper pushers. Our corrent policies result in oversupply of semi-educated people who still resort to menial jobs. Yet those who can pursue meaningful education are stuck with an even higher price tag, because the market forces them to go for advanced degrees.

Ok... but we are talking about community colleges (2 year colleges) and I think that your argument ignores the demographics of the people that are currently and traditionally being educated at community colleges.

I don't see how my argument ignores the (changing) demographic. The same principle applies whether we're talking about 2 or 4-year colleges.

Think about it this way. There are many online resources that are 100% free. Classes (oftentimes guided, i.e. with a human instructor checking in and providing feedback) are available in a wide variety of subjects. Still, what is the market value of this education? Another example is the infamous University of Phoenix (or any similar institution). Seeing it on resumes makes hiring managers laugh. It is not fair, because I do believe people out in time, money and effort on getting their MBAs. But in the real world it's not worth anything. I would hate to see CCs be devalued even more. What do you think will happen with all the kids who were counting on CCs to save money as opposed to the 4-year college route? What good will it do if good schools stop accepting CCs' credits?

I understand your point but once again, you have to look at your CC student demographic. High concentration of vocational students. High concentration of students who are only seeking an associates degree related to an occupational certification. High concentration of working students, including working parents. And sure, there are some students who use it as a bridge to a 4 year school because of cost and academic immaturity. Your contention seems to imply that some sort of free CC program will increase the number of folks who try to use it as a bridge to a 4 year program - whether those folks are academically inclined or not. I do not agree. I think that you may get some kids who get on the college track, but I think that most of increase will be students who attend for the vocational and occupational programs that are not offered at most colleges (but are offered at those "fly by night" private insanely expensive vocational colleges). Just my opinion though.

I'm all for vocational training to be widely available. However, I do think we should spend public money wisely, i.e. on those who demonstrated both initiative and ability to succeed in academic environments. This is how all "free" educational systems work: tuition is afforadable to non-existent, while entrance exams are quite stringent. You can't give everything to everybody, so rationing in some form is inevitable. Why not make it merit-based?

Well, I think it depends on the chosen field of study. I don't care that the guy fixing my HVAC showed the ability to succeed in an "academic environment" the same as a guy who wants to be a research physicist. I just want him to show the apptitude in the field he is choosing. Let me give you an example of where I think we may think similarly. My HS son is in a IT vocational program through Montogomery County Public Schools. If he successfully completes the curriculum then he is automatically admitted to the continuation program at Montgomery College (the community college). So from a "merit" standpoint, you could argue that if he completes the feeder program then he "deserves" admission more than someone who didn't. So I understand your position in that context. But most community colleges have an open enrollment component NOW - so would you change that in a free program? I guess what I am asking is whether you change the whole model of community college education just because you make it free to students? And doesn't doing that cancel out the entire reason for making it free in the first place - access?

Yes, it does. Because there is no universal access to anything. My point it: I'd rather limit access based on merit rather than ability to pay.

[Anonymous]

Community college makes total sense IF they focus the programs on trades. There is a huge occupational training gap in this country.

If graduates learn office or technical skills, it will pay off in spades because:
1. the workforce produces more taxpayers
2. it reduces welfare dependents
3. it diverts students from these for profit hucksters that don't teach anything.
4. Re: 3, we save tons of money on defaulted student loans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Community college makes total sense IF they focus the programs on trades. There is a huge occupational training gap in this country.

If graduates learn office or technical skills, it will pay off in spades because:
1. the workforce produces more taxpayers
2. it reduces welfare dependents
3. it diverts students from these for profit hucksters that don't teach anything.
4. Re: 3, we save tons of money on defaulted student loans.

The ease of acquiring student loans is the reason college costs are so damned high.
Paying for college for all is more of the nanny-state. This is NOT a job for our government.
If states wish to pay for students to attend, so be it. Education is a state function. Not one of the federal government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once again, folks on DCUM look at issues from purely a DCUM perspective - that every kid is destined to end up at a 4 year college, etc.

Look at your CC student demographic. High concentration of vocational students. High concentration of students who are only seeking an associates degree related to a professional certification. High concentration of working students, including working parents. Sure, people will use this to eventually get to the 4 year school on the cheap - but a lot of folks do that now. CC's are still relatively cheap. For a kid taking a full load, you are talking about $3K a year. But IMO, if the student leaves with some emplyable skill that makes them self sufficient (as opposed to needing welfare), it is a worthy investment.

But instead of having the federal or state government (ie. ME) pay for it, why not have the prospective employer pay to train their future employees? I can't remember now the specifics, but I heard on NPR there were big companies creating their own training or coursework to train future employees for their specialized needs, and they add in the basic as well like communications, english, math, etc., so the person can get their associates degree. This is a fine idea. Gov't funding for college education is NOT.