Free Community College

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We are talking about community college.

[Anonymous]

Maturation, maturation, maturation, many studets are not prepared for a wide variety of reasons for the rigors of four year universities immediately after high school.

Many students would benefit from 13th and 14th grade in high school. However, that is impossible for social reasons. You couldn't have 20 year olds attending the same schools as 14 year olds. Nevertheless, so many kids just don't get it, when they are in high school. They don't get the importance of doing well, they are caught up in social life, they may have learning or physical delays. Whatever the reasons many kids wake up after high school realize the no education, dead end road predicament they are in and all of a sudden say "oh shit, now what do I do?".

If Community College education were a more mainstream part of the American education system our workforce would be more productive, better paid, and more upwardly mobile.

At present far too many kids leave high school unprepared for college and ultimately flounder financially and socially for the rest of their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We are talking about community college.

Are you implying it's already dumb by definition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We are talking about community college.

Are you implying it's already dumb by definition?

I am not implying anything. It is a fact that anyone who has a high school diploma or GED can register for classes in pretty much any community college. For example:

NOVA has an open door admission policy. Any person 18 years of age or older who holds a high school diploma or equivalent can take advantage of our academic opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

So you quote an article from someone who work for Bush and expect us to accept it as nonpartisian? I don't think so. It's not just the government's fault. It's chicken and egg. If you stop allowing loans, who benefits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Nonsense. read back to yourself what you just wrote . " it was cheap ....but not everybody could go "

what programs changed the " ability to go " , PP ?

Pell Grants have been around for at least 50 years. As were student loans.

The only things that have changed is grade inflation and tuition inflation. Both serve the master, which is that the banking industry must be fed with more and more loans, regardless of how high the tuition gets or how poor the earning potential for a given BA degree. The loans keep being issued.

See this before in another industry ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maturation, maturation, maturation, many studets are not prepared for a wide variety of reasons for the rigors of four year universities immediately after high school.

Many students would benefit from 13th and 14th grade in high school. However, that is impossible for social reasons. You couldn't have 20 year olds attending the same schools as 14 year olds. Nevertheless, so many kids just don't get it, when they are in high school. They don't get the importance of doing well, they are caught up in social life, they may have learning or physical delays. Whatever the reasons many kids wake up after high school realize the no education, dead end road predicament they are in and all of a sudden say "oh shit, now what do I do?".

If Community College education were a more mainstream part of the American education system our workforce would be more productive, better paid, and more upwardly mobile.

At present far too many kids leave high school unprepared for college and ultimately flounder financially and socially for the rest of their lives.

Here's a cheaper solution:

ground the mommy helicopter in late childhood. have them take the bus, walk to the store, work, manage a bank account, and keep their grades up ( without tutors and parent letters to teachers). Then see if your kid ( who you likely kept out of Pre-K until they were almost 6 ) really needs " 13th and 14th grade".

[Anonymous]

^^^

Sure throw around criticisms. The problem with America is that "some patents" and "those parents" mamby pampby their kids. They raise them, nurture them, feed them, and recognize human beings are not all cut from the same mold.

Thankfully we are not all cut from the same mold. Otherwise we'd all be jerks like you!

Red shirting, 13th and 14th grades are not the problem. The problem is that some people need those societal benefits and they are not available. There are millions of American whose lives would be infinitely improved today if at some point in their lives they had received just one more positive push or one more second chance.

Community Colleges can provide remedial education, a gradual transition into higher education, provide less expensive commuter college for students who need to live at home, vocational training, education for struggle parents who need further education to advance but need to take care of their children.

70% of Americans do not have a four year degree or higher. Many of these people have no marketable skills whatsoever. Many of these individuals will never in their lives ever have stable employment or live above the national poverty level. Then poverty and lack of education becomes a generational issue!!!

Clearly there are millions of American who need the second chance opportunities Community Colleges can provide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maturation, maturation, maturation, many studets are not prepared for a wide variety of reasons for the rigors of four year universities immediately after high school.

Many students would benefit from 13th and 14th grade in high school. However, that is impossible for social reasons. You couldn't have 20 year olds attending the same schools as 14 year olds. Nevertheless, so many kids just don't get it, when they are in high school. They don't get the importance of doing well, they are caught up in social life, they may have learning or physical delays. Whatever the reasons many kids wake up after high school realize the no education, dead end road predicament they are in and all of a sudden say "oh shit, now what do I do?".

If Community College education were a more mainstream part of the American education system our workforce would be more productive, better paid, and more upwardly mobile.

At present far too many kids leave high school unprepared for college and ultimately flounder financially and socially for the rest of their lives.

Here's a cheaper solution:

ground the mommy helicopter in late childhood. have them take the bus, walk to the store, work, manage a bank account, and keep their grades up ( without tutors and parent letters to teachers). Then see if your kid ( who you likely kept out of Pre-K until they were almost 6 ) really needs " 13th and 14th grade".

So you are saying that a kid who does these things will be more employable than a college graduate? Or will they miraculously have the money to pay for college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^

Sure throw around criticisms. The problem with America is that "some patents" and "those parents" mamby pampby their kids. They raise them, nurture them, feed them, and recognize human beings are not all cut from the same mold.

Thankfully we are not all cut from the same mold. Otherwise we'd all be jerks like you!

Red shirting, 13th and 14th grades are not the problem. The problem is that some people need those societal benefits and they are not available. There are millions of American whose lives would be infinitely improved today if at some point in their lives they had received just one more positive push or one more second chance.

Community Colleges can provide remedial education, a gradual transition into higher education, provide less expensive commuter college for students who need to live at home, vocational training, education for struggle parents who need further education to advance but need to take care of their children.

70% of Americans do not have a four year degree or higher. Many of these people have no marketable skills whatsoever. Many of these individuals will never in their lives ever have stable employment or live above the national poverty level. Then poverty and lack of education becomes a generational issue!!!

Clearly there are millions of American who need the second chance opportunities Community Colleges can provide.

My life would have been infinitely improved if I had been born an heiress. That didn't happen, so I did the best with what I got.

At some point, we need to say enough is enough. We provide everyone with a good primary education by the world's standards. We even educate the children here who are not citizens of our country. With the internet, you can educate yourself ad nauseam on any topic you like. People are responsible for their own fates. There are vast possibilities available in this country for people from all backgrounds to become educated. Yes, some roads are harder than others, but absent exigent circumstances, most people are given an adequate opportunity at a pretty good education.

But we cannot guarantee a life wealth and success for everyone. Whether you want to accept it or not, there are only so many brain surgeons needed in the world. Unless you want to change foundation of commerce in our country ( I don't know, maybe you do), then you have to acknowledge that some jobs are more difficult than other and thus hold a higher value. Your problem is that you are equating education with future financial success, and yes while they are related, they are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^

Sure throw around criticisms. The problem with America is that "some patents" and "those parents" mamby pampby their kids. They raise them, nurture them, feed them, and recognize human beings are not all cut from the same mold.

Thankfully we are not all cut from the same mold. Otherwise we'd all be jerks like you!

Red shirting, 13th and 14th grades are not the problem. The problem is that some people need those societal benefits and they are not available. There are millions of American whose lives would be infinitely improved today if at some point in their lives they had received just one more positive push or one more second chance.

Community Colleges can provide remedial education, a gradual transition into higher education, provide less expensive commuter college for students who need to live at home, vocational training, education for struggle parents who need further education to advance but need to take care of their children.

70% of Americans do not have a four year degree or higher. Many of these people have no marketable skills whatsoever. Many of these individuals will never in their lives ever have stable employment or live above the national poverty level. Then poverty and lack of education becomes a generational issue!!!

Clearly there are millions of American who need the second chance opportunities Community Colleges can provide.

My life would have been infinitely improved if I had been born an heiress. That didn't happen, so I did the best with what I got.

At some point, we need to say enough is enough. We provide everyone with a good primary education by the world's standards. We even educate the children here who are not citizens of our country. With the internet, you can educate yourself ad nauseam on any topic you like. People are responsible for their own fates. There are vast possibilities available in this country for people from all backgrounds to become educated. Yes, some roads are harder than others, but absent exigent circumstances, most people are given an adequate opportunity at a pretty good education.

But we cannot guarantee a life wealth and success for everyone. Whether you want to accept it or not, there are only so many brain surgeons needed in the world. Unless you want to change foundation of commerce in our country ( I don't know, maybe you do), then you have to acknowledge that some jobs are more difficult than other and thus hold a higher value. Your problem is that you are equating education with future financial success, and yes while they are related, they are mutually exclusive.

Your speech is great, but we are talking about a community college education. People are not getting associates degrees and walking into 6 figure jobs. Most of these people will leave CC with entry level job skills and vocational skills. What they do with those skills is up to them. But a $3K a year per student investment to make sure people have the opportunity to obtain these skills IF they want it is a good investment. If you look at the work and other requrements that go with it, it is not a bad idea.

Seriously, I wish that folks would just step outside of their macro political box and stop with the philosophical musings about bootstrapping and self determination. We need real life solutions to some of these issues. The income gap in this country is getting worse and will only lead to MORE folks needing "entitlements" unless we do something to help people be more self sufficient. Unless someone else proposes a better idea, count me in.

[Anonymous]

That's just it. Providing equal access does not guarantee equal outcomes. Yet, when you judge how successfull a program is, all you look at is the outcomes. It's a moot point. CC is accessible as it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^

Sure throw around criticisms. The problem with America is that "some patents" and "those parents" mamby pampby their kids. They raise them, nurture them, feed them, and recognize human beings are not all cut from the same mold.

Thankfully we are not all cut from the same mold. Otherwise we'd all be jerks like you!

Red shirting, 13th and 14th grades are not the problem. The problem is that some people need those societal benefits and they are not available. There are millions of American whose lives would be infinitely improved today if at some point in their lives they had received just one more positive push or one more second chance.

Community Colleges can provide remedial education, a gradual transition into higher education, provide less expensive commuter college for students who need to live at home, vocational training, education for struggle parents who need further education to advance but need to take care of their children.

70% of Americans do not have a four year degree or higher. Many of these people have no marketable skills whatsoever. Many of these individuals will never in their lives ever have stable employment or live above the national poverty level. Then poverty and lack of education becomes a generational issue!!!

Clearly there are millions of American who need the second chance opportunities Community Colleges can provide.

My life would have been infinitely improved if I had been born an heiress. That didn't happen, so I did the best with what I got.

At some point, we need to say enough is enough. We provide everyone with a good primary education by the world's standards. We even educate the children here who are not citizens of our country. With the internet, you can educate yourself ad nauseam on any topic you like. People are responsible for their own fates. There are vast possibilities available in this country for people from all backgrounds to become educated. Yes, some roads are harder than others, but absent exigent circumstances, most people are given an adequate opportunity at a pretty good education.

But we cannot guarantee a life wealth and success for everyone. Whether you want to accept it or not, there are only so many brain surgeons needed in the world. Unless you want to change foundation of commerce in our country ( I don't know, maybe you do), then you have to acknowledge that some jobs are more difficult than other and thus hold a higher value. Your problem is that you are equating education with future financial success, and yes while they are related, they are mutually exclusive.

Agree. The same boiling water that softens potatoes hardens eggs. It is all about what you are made of not your circumstances...

[Anonymous]

Nice adage, but unfortunately he data says the circumstances matter a lot. Read inter generational mobility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nice adage, but unfortunately he data says the circumstances matter a lot. Read inter generational mobility.

The data can be looked at from various vantage points. You either believe that you are ultimately responsible for your choices and their consequences, or you are a victim of circumstances beyond your control. Unfortunately, most young people are too young to realize they have a choice. They live by default.