Free Community College

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a different take on it. I went to college in the 80's . It was expected of me as it was of all of my classmates . We were middle class. 98% of my HS classmates went right along with me to 4 year Universities . 20% of my grad class went on to Ivy League schools. Whether your parents paid or you worked it cost about 8K a year for a state university and about 15K a year for an Ivy League school. Yes, people really did " work their way through college by themselves" .

But somewhere along the line, college became big business. As in, the sky rocketing tuition began to reflect the investment / debt balnce sheet of the colleges as they borrowed and speculated in the financial markets.

With universities spending more and borrowing more, you'd think that every one attending would be taught by "leaders in their field" Wrong again, just as ruition started to sky rocket, Universities started only hiring " Assoc Profs" and paying them less, and no benefits.

FF 20 years, the average american middle class family is looking at 40K a year to 50 K a year for university only to have their child taught by Assoc Profs and TA"s who are often just part time employees ( A choice the Univ makes to avoid paying them benefits , like health insurance and paid vacation)

WHERE IS THE TUITION $$$ that the University is getting going ??

Its being used to pay debt, to build endowment , to what ???

Enter Obama with " the solution" :

Don't worry Middle Class America: your kids can all go to Community College for "free" .

In other words, for the middle class, the standard of hope for a better future has been lowered to community college ( formerly the bastion of girls who got PG and boys who did jail time and got a GED)

And the 1% ust keep getting richer and teh gap wider.

Here's the question: how much money do you need ? When are you rich enough ?

What is operating to make college cost 50K a year? Its insane. And don't tell me that more people are going , they aren't and there are less young people as well ( pop of youth is less than boomer generation)

Something doesn't mesh here.

Geez ... you started out sounding like such smart rational person, then decided to make U-Turn and 100 words later finished sounding like the biggest dope in the world. Maybe it's because I only have a fair education, but I'm wondering, how do you do that?

[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.

Love you and agree. Will gladly pay more taxes for the betterment of our citizens.

[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?

Because making it merit based tends to widen the gap even more. Just look at the Georgia HOPE scholarship. You had to get a certain GPA and ACT/SAT score, and the majority of your college was paid for. Sounds great in theory, but it turned out that it was actually allowing the upper SES students to go even more and the underrepresented less, since it was the upper SES students who tended to achieve what was necessary to get the scholarshi, not the underrepresented groups it was intended to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000 Before we start spending more money that we don't have for more government programs we need to address the problems caused by existing government meddling.

[Anonymous]

Do we get free condoms with it?

[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.

Republican here. Fully agree.

[Anonymous]

Quoted from PP:

The ease of acquiring student loans is the reason college costs are so damned high. [b]

Don't you get it, the reason tuition kept going up and up ( amoung other reasons, like University's borrowing money to build, is that the banks kept financing them as AN INDUSTRY IN ITSELF. College ceased to be about education in 1990's and became a venue for bankers to earn morny charging interest.

The universities didn't complain because they kept getting more students ( tis because teh average Americna family just doubled down and worked itself to death to pay for as much as it could)

consequences:

both parents working 60 hours a week

teens life consists of building a college application profile

and who is making out : bankers

get it ...

[Anonymous]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/11/23/why-the-government-is-to-blame-for-high-college-costs

Sorry, you don't get it...the above is just one of the many articles that explain why it is the government and not the banking industry that is driving the cost of college tuition.

[Anonymous]

It's not that hard to understand why tuition has risen exponentially... it's basic supply/demand. 30 years ago, college was cheap since not everybody could go, and thus demand was low and costs were cheap. Then, various programs made it easier for people to access college, which created more demand. When more demand was created, the supplier was able to charge more for the product, and can continue to charge more for the product as long as people are willing to pay the cost of admission.

IMO, continuing to create more demand for the product will not curtail the cost of admission the least bit.

[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?

Because making it merit based tends to widen the gap even more. Just look at the Georgia HOPE scholarship. You had to get a certain GPA and ACT/SAT score, and the majority of your college was paid for. Sounds great in theory, but it turned out that it was actually allowing the upper SES students to go even more and the underrepresented less, since it was the upper SES students who tended to achieve what was necessary to get the scholarshi, not the underrepresented groups it was intended to help.

I see your point. Sadly, you can't make anybody achieve anything unless they want to do it themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000 Before we start spending more money that we don't have for more government programs we need to address the problems caused by existing government meddling.

So ignorant. How else would a student pay for their education but to get loans. I'm sorry, maybe their rich parents should pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because making it merit based tends to widen the gap even more. Just look at the Georgia HOPE scholarship. You had to get a certain GPA and ACT/SAT score, and the majority of your college was paid for. Sounds great in theory, but it turned out that it was actually allowing the upper SES students to go even more and the underrepresented less, since it was the upper SES students who tended to achieve what was necessary to get the scholarshi, not the underrepresented groups it was intended to help.

I see your point. Sadly, you can't make anybody achieve anything unless they want to do it themselves.

You can't fairly evaluate this unless you think about how difficult it is for them to achieve and what obstacles poor students must face. It's not a fair fight. It's sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IT IS NOT FREE as the teachers are still getting paid, right????!!!!!


The middle class will pay for CC for the poors.
Headlines need to change to say, "Obama proposed the middle class provide community college degrees for American poors.

Do you complain about corporate welfare? Did you complain when the govt bailed out investment banks even though they walked away without any penalties. I was an investment banker and I couldn't even believe what banks got away with. Nope, you didn't complain. You only complain about "the poors".

What a disappointment for a so called educated society and region.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because making it merit based tends to widen the gap even more. Just look at the Georgia HOPE scholarship. You had to get a certain GPA and ACT/SAT score, and the majority of your college was paid for. Sounds great in theory, but it turned out that it was actually allowing the upper SES students to go even more and the underrepresented less, since it was the upper SES students who tended to achieve what was necessary to get the scholarshi, not the underrepresented groups it was intended to help.

I see your point. Sadly, you can't make anybody achieve anything unless they want to do it themselves.

You can't fairly evaluate this unless you think about how difficult it is for them to achieve and what obstacles poor students must face. It's not a fair fight. It's sad.

Than it is the obstacles that need to be addressed, because as you pointed out, throwing more money into the system doesn't do much for them. Providing access by dumbing down the already pitifully low standards is not a solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IT IS NOT FREE as the teachers are still getting paid, right????!!!!!


The middle class will pay for CC for the poors.
Headlines need to change to say, "Obama proposed the middle class provide community college degrees for American poors.

Do you complain about corporate welfare? Did you complain when the govt bailed out investment banks even though they walked away without any penalties. I was an investment banker and I couldn't even believe what banks got away with. Nope, you didn't complain. You only complain about "the poors".

What a disappointment for a so called educated society and region.

I'm sure he or she did. As did many others. However, resistance is futile. Sure, vote. See where it gets you in this day and age