Free Community College

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tennessee is rolling out a program now. It is happening.

Much different than it being mandated by the Fed. Govt. Many states have “free college education” for residents who have a certain grade point average. If states choose to do this, fine. When the federal government gets involved, I see it as an issue.

The Tennessee plan is paid for by state lottery funds AND federal aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tennessee is rolling out a program now. It is happening.

Much different than it being mandated by the Fed. Govt. Many states have “free college education” for residents who have a certain grade point average. If states choose to do this, fine. When the federal government gets involved, I see it as an issue.

The Tennessee plan is paid for by state lottery funds AND federal aid.

In essence the poor are funding TN's plan.

[Anonymous]

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).

And high schools need to step it up and teach more vocational skills. More does not equal better.

[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?

Excellent argument

[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.

+1,000

and a standing ovation, thank you for a thoughtful response that considers a broad range of people's experiences and no judgment - a refreshing DCUM post, indeed

+ another 1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That would be great. But most employers don't even want to pay a decent wage or give health insurance and are always looking for ways to cut the bottom line at the expense of their employees. It would be nice though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here. But you already have govt funding of college educations through Pell Grants and other grant and loan guarantees under the GSL program.

Seriously, I have no idea where people are on issues like this. Many of you bemoan the "entitlement" society you claim we have but don't want to invest the money to make folks self sufficient so they do not need the entitlements. If the Fed and the states want to pay for this through some "vice tax" (lottery, taxes on alcohol, etc.) or gutting the corporate tax breaks, I am all for it. I would much rather my money be used so that people can get an education and job skills in lieu of direct welfare payments. How can we allow all this foreign aid but cry foul when it comes to paying for our own citizens being educated? I do not get it.

[Anonymous]

This was basically the case when I lived in California 10 years ago. You could attend for free if you were a high school student (so I took 4 or 5 classes there over the summers, completely free). In state residents paid something trivial like $9/credit. I was blown away when I moved out here and needed a NOVA credit for something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here. But you already have govt funding of college educations through Pell Grants and other grant and loan guarantees under the GSL program.

Seriously, I have no idea where people are on issues like this. Many of you bemoan the "entitlement" society you claim we have but don't want to invest the money to make folks self sufficient so they do not need the entitlements. If the Fed and the states want to pay for this through some "vice tax" (lottery, taxes on alcohol, etc.) or gutting the corporate tax breaks, I am all for it. I would much rather my money be used so that people can get an education and job skills in lieu of direct welfare payments. How can we allow all this foreign aid but cry foul when it comes to paying for our own citizens being educated? I do not get it.

And not to mention funding that comes directly from the state. There is a reason for in-state and out-of-state funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here. But you already have govt funding of college educations through Pell Grants and other grant and loan guarantees under the GSL program.

Seriously, I have no idea where people are on issues like this. Many of you bemoan the "entitlement" society you claim we have but don't want to invest the money to make folks self sufficient so they do not need the entitlements. If the Fed and the states want to pay for this through some "vice tax" (lottery, taxes on alcohol, etc.) or gutting the corporate tax breaks, I am all for it. I would much rather my money be used so that people can get an education and job skills in lieu of direct welfare payments. How can we allow all this foreign aid but cry foul when it comes to paying for our own citizens being educated? I do not get it.

And not to mention funding that comes directly from the state. There is a reason for in-state and out-of-state funding.

Sorry, meant in-state and out-of-state tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tennessee is rolling out a program now. It is happening.

Much different than it being mandated by the Fed. Govt. Many states have “free college education” for residents who have a certain grade point average. If states choose to do this, fine. When the federal government gets involved, I see it as an issue.

The Tennessee plan is paid for by state lottery funds AND federal aid.

In essence the poor are funding TN's plan.

You mean if they purchase lottery tickets? Hopefully, if they're smart enough to attend college, they can make responsible decisions re the use of their money.

[Anonymous]

Obama's plan is just another entitlement for illegal immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was basically the case when I lived in California 10 years ago. You could attend for free if you were a high school student (so I took 4 or 5 classes there over the summers, completely free). In state residents paid something trivial like $9/credit. I was blown away when I moved out here and needed a NOVA credit for something.

And California is such a great example to the rest of us on how to manage a state budget.

[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?

Excellent argument

As long as you understand that your education is directly related to where you grow up. If you grow up in a poor school district, it's not going to be as good. So what does merit look like? Also, does that mean that there are no second chances? So if you have a son who struggles, as many boys do as they mature later - but eventually get it together, do you just pass them by because they did not score well or do well in school? Only those top performers ever get a chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama's plan is just another entitlement for illegal immigrants.

You can't be serious.