Obama to Propose Free Community College

[Amentep]

Nice, another very fascinating post. But you guys seen to have very opposing views. I hope Hurlshot comments as he is involved in the industry

My entire working career has been at colleges and universities. This may give more/less weight to my argument, depending on your feeling. I also was one of those financially challenged students who started with a local two year college because I could afford anything else, then transferred on to the local 4 year university. I took no loans out to finance my education - something I'm greatful for now.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Amentep

[Valsuelm]

 

Community colleges are generally two year schools as opposed to a four year school. You get awarded an 'associates degree' when completing it. Something that is generally completely worthless.

This depends on your area and job requirements, and the degree type. A termianal associates (typically called an "Applied Associates") may meet eligiblity standards for a job or make you eligible for certification for a job. A regular assoicates may make you more marketable in general, but also in some areas may make you eligible for some jobs that requires some minimum of schooling (professional proctoring of tests, teachers aide, etc).

 

The quality of education at most community colleges is not that high,

This is a misperception of people who believe that spending a million dollars somehow makes something worth more. While it obviously differs by state and accredeting body, many community colleges are just as rigerous in their educational requirements as a 4 year school. But this is true for all educational institutions.

 

 

 

A regular associates will generally make you about as more marketable as a high school diploma will compared to not having one. A large chunk of the certifications and such you're talking about are bunk. Yea, some employers might want you to have them, but in general you can either get around them (meaning get hired without them), or even find a better paying job that doesn't require more than a high school diploma. You aren't going to find too many high paying jobs that want you to have an associates. They either want a four year or more degree or they don't care if you have a degree at all.

 

And it's not a misconception. I'd never state that just because something costs more means it's better. Especially in regards to 'higher education'.

 

I live in New York, a state that is considered to have one of the best state university systems in the U.S.. Yea, you can find basketweaving courses and remedial courses at some of the four year SUNY schools (and increasingly at many private universities as well), but the quality and standards of the courses offered at the four year institutions is generally higher than that of the two. This is no doubt in part due to the Community Colleges response to the majority of their student body not being too serious about their education. While it's certainly ideally the case that the standards at the CCs are the same as those at the 4 year schools, the reality becomes a little different when a large chunk of your student body needs courses in things they should have learned prior to getting to college. It's laughable though that the standards of either are 'rigorous'. In general (note that 'in general' means there are exceptions) the standards required to get a four year degree from most universities is quite low and getting lower all the time. The exceptions are generally the math and sciences.

 

It is also notable that the standards to get into a CC are generally lower than that of getting into a 4 year school as well. For a CC you generally just need a high school diploma or GED, for a great many of the Four Year institutions you needed a little to a lot more. In New York, last I looked (which was some years back), most of the 4 years schools required little more than the diploma or GED to get into, though some of them (those that are generally considered the better schools, like the School of Environmental Science and Forestry) have higher requirements to get into.

 

Also, while community college credits are 100% transferable within the SUNY system as the community colleges are within that system (and I'd wager this is true in other state systems), you will find that nationwide some four year Universities and post grad programs do not accept community college credit. In particular some of the more prestigious programs.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Community College are 100% worthless. They aren't. For some it is a good alternative to heading to the four year school right away, and as I mentioned you can actually pick up a trade at some CCs. The folks that truly benefit are in the minority though. And to answer Bruce's questions:

 

 

 

Are you saying that end of the day the majority of people who go through these colleagues don't end up really benefitting from them because of the subpar education and there attitude?

 

So they effectively don't get a proper degree or they just don't complete the degree therefore making it useless?

 

 

Yes, and yes.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

Nice, another very fascinating post. But you guys seen to have very opposing views. I hope Hurlshot comments as he is involved in the industry

My entire working career has been at colleges and universities. This may give more/less weight to my argument, depending on your feeling. I also was one of those financially challenged students who started with a local two year college because I could afford anything else, then transferred on to the local 4 year university. I took no loans out to finance my education - something I'm greatful for now.

 

 

Yes your career is very relevant to this discussion, you are like Hurlshot. You are active in the industry. Its hard to argue this isn't the best source of feedback as its firsthand 

[Amentep]

A regular associates will generally make you about as more marketable as a high school diploma will compared to not having one.

Disagree, it will make you very slightly more marketable than a high school diploma. Very slightly. But that's not the point of most community college that don't have some form of technical or skill base component (in which case it'll make you much more marketable).

 

I live in New York, a state that is considered to have one of the best state university systems in the U.S.. Yea, you can find basketweaving courses and remedial courses at some of the four year SUNY schools (and increasingly at many private universities as well), but the quality and standards of the courses offered at the four year institutions is generally higher than that of the two. It's laughable though that the standards of either are 'rigorous'. In general (note that 'in general' means there are exceptions) the standards required to get a four year degree from most universities is quite low and getting lower all the time. The exceptions are generally the math and sciences.

I'm not talking about entrance requirements, however (last time I checked Havard's entrance requirement wasn't that high - paying for it was another matter altogether).

 

I'm talking about academic rigor of coursework. Community colleges in a system like SUNY are typically accredited by the same body that accredited the 4 year units.

 

Also, while community college credits are 100% transferable within the SUNY system as the community colleges are within that system (and I'd wager this is true in other state systems), you will find that nationwide some four year Universities and post grad programs do not accept community college credit. In particular some of the more prestigious programs.

However I know of some competitive programs that will accept community college credits (in fact the two year school I work at now has a program that specifically gets students admitted to a very competitive, nationally known program if they complete it with all the proper standards). These things vary by program and state (and by who is running the programs)

Edited January 12, 2015 by Amentep

[Hurlshort]

I'm no expert on community colleges, other than poaching a few classes from them to round out my degree and credentials, I spent most of my time at a state university, and there is little similarity between K-12 public schools and them.  I assume they all run like they do in the TV documentary Community.

 

 

I do agree this is more of a PR stunt than anything substantial, they are already very affordable.  As I said originally, I'll perk up when they figure out how to lower tuition at 4 year schools.  

 

In terms of quality, I have a ton of Community Colleges around me and they vary dramatically in what they offer.  De Anza sits next to the Apple campus and is immensely popular and highly regarded, while a few are run down and shoddy.  But with education I keep saying it is more what the student does with it than anything else.  A motivated student can turn that community college experience into a marketable skillset, but a slacker is simply going to get a few more years of carrying around a backpack and playing hackey sack in a quad.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Hurlshot

[Gromnir]

one thing to note is that hurl is in CA. community college was extreme affordable here in CA for many years... we says "was" because we have no idea how much it costs per unit nowadays. relative speaking, the csu system and uc system were also kinda cheap compared to other public university systems, though tuition at uc and csu has increased dramatically in the past couple decades. CA might be a somewhat skewed example compared to the rest o' the US.  dunno.

 

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2012/07/18/csu-and-uc-tuition-hikes-over-time

 

am genuine not certain how much community college costs, but truth-to-tell, if we were a CA resident who could not get into (and find some way to pay for) an ivy, stanford, duke, notre dame or other elite private university, we would wonder what would be the particular advantage o' forgoing community college for the first two years o' our higher education.  with our community college units being free transferable to uc or csu, the savings by attending a community college would, we suspect, be extreme. am certain many parents attempting to pay for junior's tuition and living expenses at UCLA or csusd would be much relieved to discover that they need only worry 'bout two-to-three year commitment rather than four or five years o' such.

 

...

 

quick check:

 

http://www.losrios.edu/lrc/lrc_tuitionfees_spring.php

 

community college isn't as cheap as we thought. take 12-15 units is between $552 and $690 a semester, no? however, the tuition is still relative cheap and anybody with a part-time or even a summer job could afford the tuition. if the fed plan is similar to the TN plan, 8 hours o' community service per semester for free tuition still strikes us as a bargain for a student... but yeah, am not certain that the free community college is going to be helping many additional californians get edumacated.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 12, 2015 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

I did just pay $65 for half a unit the other day, which seemed pricey.  But hey, I'm only a half unit away from the final step on my salary schedule, so it will be worth it.  

[Gromnir]

actually, one wonders how the fed and CA will handle free community college. technically, there is no tuition for community college in CA. we got a per-unit fee as kinda an end-around on tuition.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Amentep]

The local two year college is 1/2 the cost (tuition and fees) of the nearest 4 year school and 1/5 the cost of the nearest local research university. But they're all ran by the same governing body and accredited by the same regional accredeting group.

[LadyCrimson]

Where I am (California), Community Colleges are largely regarded as the "stepping stone" to the University ... usually for cost reasons, as mentioned, or sometimes because the student isn't quite sure what they want to focus on yet, and spending time at a Community College first can help them with that, without costing an arm and a leg/wasting their funds as they dabble around, so to speak.

 

I think almost all of my family started at Community Colleges (many at DeAnza, the one Hurl mentioned, actually), moved on to state U's, and are now all very well employed. My mother used one to pad out her U. degree with more "modernized" education when she had to go back to work (eg, her degree was gained in the 50's and she wanted a job in the 80's). Worked very well for her.

 

Whether they are sub-par in "quality" or not really depends on individual school. And of course a 2-year Associate degree may not be enough for jobs that require/insist on 4+ year degrees, but that should be obvious.    I would not call them completely useless, however...it just depends on what the student's goal's are.

[ShadySands]

Old but ...

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/high-paying-jobs-with-associates-degree-2013-12?op=1

[Amentep]

To be fair, most of those are what are (locally at least) considered "applied" associate degrees, they're like half liberal arts and half technical degree.

[Meshugger]

I like how they are advertising air traffic controller as just another job that doesn't need a higher education. It's pretty much one of the most stressful jobs in the world and is payed accordingly. 

Edited January 12, 2015 by Meshugger

[BruceVC]

Okay I have heard enough feedback to believe that community colleagues are not all bad and do have value from a financial cost perspective and also from an education perspective

 

So now I have two primary questions 

 

• Why is it  wrong for the Federal government to get involved in education? GD was saying that the Fed shouldn't be involved in education. I'm missing the reason why this is so,  I think we all accept that education is the foundation for a successful and growing economy so why shouldn't the Fed get involved ?
• Hurlshot mentioned this is more of PR in his view, do the rest of you guys agree? I just think there is a massive difference between free and getting something cheaper and ultimately this program will offer free education for 2 years which is surely better than the current system where you need to pay. But this raises another question, who will pay for this free 2 years? Will it be from the tax revenue of each independent state?

[Gromnir]

from the bbc

 

"The White House says if the plan were adopted by all 50 states - which would be required to fund 25% of the costs, while the federal government shoulders the rest - it would save the average community college enrollee $3,800 [£2,500] in tuition per year and cover about 9 million students."

 

is a a plan that need serious logistical work.  that being said, if bbc numbers is correct, we can see that CA community colleges, which is technical 'posed to have free tuition, is still a fair bit cheaper than the national average. $3800 is national average, but from Gromnir's link above, we would be seeing a $1200 to $1400 yearly "tuition" for current CA community college students in our locale.  work out a program to get free community college when you is current only paying $1400 does seem silly, but perhaps we would feel different if we were one o' the folks having to pay $3,800 or more.  if $3,800 is an average, and we know that CA is considerable cheaper, then we assume some states is a fair bit more expensive.

 

we will be interested to see numbers from TN where a similar program to the proposed plan from obama is already in place. unfortunately, obama doesn't likely have time to wait to see if the TN program results in a marked number o' additional folks receiving 2-year and 4-year degrees.  he needs to get an antagonistic Congress to pony up a whole lotta money for a program that has a less than clear benefits.

 

http://www.indra.com/8ball/front.html

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Valsuelm]

 

Okay I have heard enough feedback to believe that community colleagues are not all bad and do have value from a financial cost perspective and also from an education perspective

 

So now I have two primary questions 

 

• Why is it  wrong for the Federal government to get involved in education? GD was saying that the Fed shouldn't be involved in education. I'm missing the reason why this is so,  I think we all accept that education is the foundation for a successful and growing economy so why shouldn't the Fed get involved ?
• Hurlshot mentioned this is more of PR in his view, do the rest of you guys agree? I just think there is a massive difference between free and getting something cheaper and ultimately this program will offer free education for 2 years which is surely better than the current system where you need to pay. But this raises another question, who will pay for this free 2 years? Will it be from the tax revenue of each independent state?

 

 

The simple answer is the Fed shouldn't get involved because it's 100% unconstitutional for the Fed to do so.

 

When you consider the negatives of the Fed getting involved beyond the fact that it has no legitimate legal authority to do so, the why gets a bit more complex, but the negatives are quite big.

 

Legality aside, which is no trivial issue (though I know you think it is), there's absolutely no need for Community colleges to be free. They are already affordable to everyone (and grants are even available to many). You'd have to look really really really hard to find someone that couldn't afford it due to their financial situation, and if such a person exists their predicament is very unusual. Loans that fully cover the cost are readily available for everyone, unless they already took similar loans and defaulted on them. And if Community college is of any real benefit they will make the money to pay back those loans.

 

The reality is that community college is not of any real benefit to a lot of people who go there. The reality is that even four year schools are increasingly of little to no benefit to a lot of people who go there. The more people who get a degree the lower the value of that degree in regards to getting a job. The reality also is that the Federal governments involvement in higher education is the primary driver of cost increases. If the government starts shouldering 100% of the costs of community colleges you can rest assured that the expenses associated with running them will become even more skewed and subject to corruption and waste than they already are.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

Okay I have heard enough feedback to believe that community colleagues are not all bad and do have value from a financial cost perspective and also from an education perspective

 

So now I have two primary questions 

 

• Why is it  wrong for the Federal government to get involved in education? GD was saying that the Fed shouldn't be involved in education. I'm missing the reason why this is so,  I think we all accept that education is the foundation for a successful and growing economy so why shouldn't the Fed get involved ?
• Hurlshot mentioned this is more of PR in his view, do the rest of you guys agree? I just think there is a massive difference between free and getting something cheaper and ultimately this program will offer free education for 2 years which is surely better than the current system where you need to pay. But this raises another question, who will pay for this free 2 years? Will it be from the tax revenue of each independent state?

 

 

The simple answer is the Fed shouldn't get involved because it's 100% unconstitutional for the Fed to do so.

 

When you consider the negatives of the Fed getting involved beyond the fact that it has no legitimate legal authority to do so, the why gets a bit more complex, but the negatives are quite big.

 

Legality aside, which is no trivial issue (though I know you think it is), there's absolutely no need for Community colleges to be free. They are already affordable to everyone (and grants are even available to many). You'd have to look really really really hard to find someone that couldn't afford it due to their financial situation, and if such a person exists their predicament is very unusual. Loans that fully cover the cost are readily available for everyone, unless they already took similar loans and defaulted on them. And if Community college is of any real benefit they will make the money to pay back those loans.

 

The reality is that community college is not of any real benefit to a lot of people who go there. The reality is that even four year schools are increasingly of little to no benefit to a lot of people who go there. The more people who get a degree the lower the value of that degree in regards to getting a job. The reality also is that the Federal governments involvement in higher education is the primary driver of cost increases. If the government starts shouldering 100% of the costs of community colleges you can rest assured that the expenses associated with running them will become even more skewed and subject to corruption and waste than they already are.

 

 

Thanks for sharing, interesting post

 

And why is it unconstitutional, does the US constitution specifically say  " the federal government must get involved in education for reason x " "?

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

Okay I have heard enough feedback to believe that community colleagues are not all bad and do have value from a financial cost perspective and also from an education perspective

 

So now I have two primary questions 

 

• Why is it  wrong for the Federal government to get involved in education? GD was saying that the Fed shouldn't be involved in education. I'm missing the reason why this is so,  I think we all accept that education is the foundation for a successful and growing economy so why shouldn't the Fed get involved ?
• Hurlshot mentioned this is more of PR in his view, do the rest of you guys agree? I just think there is a massive difference between free and getting something cheaper and ultimately this program will offer free education for 2 years which is surely better than the current system where you need to pay. But this raises another question, who will pay for this free 2 years? Will it be from the tax revenue of each independent state?

 

 

The simple answer is the Fed shouldn't get involved because it's 100% unconstitutional for the Fed to do so.

 

When you consider the negatives of the Fed getting involved beyond the fact that it has no legitimate legal authority to do so, the why gets a bit more complex, but the negatives are quite big.

 

Legality aside, which is no trivial issue (though I know you think it is), there's absolutely no need for Community colleges to be free. They are already affordable to everyone (and grants are even available to many). You'd have to look really really really hard to find someone that couldn't afford it due to their financial situation, and if such a person exists their predicament is very unusual. Loans that fully cover the cost are readily available for everyone, unless they already took similar loans and defaulted on them. And if Community college is of any real benefit they will make the money to pay back those loans.

 

The reality is that community college is not of any real benefit to a lot of people who go there. The reality is that even four year schools are increasingly of little to no benefit to a lot of people who go there. The more people who get a degree the lower the value of that degree in regards to getting a job. The reality also is that the Federal governments involvement in higher education is the primary driver of cost increases. If the government starts shouldering 100% of the costs of community colleges you can rest assured that the expenses associated with running them will become even more skewed and subject to corruption and waste than they already are.

 

 

Thanks for sharing, interesting post

 

And why is it unconstitutional, does the US constitution specifically say  " the federal government must get involved in education for reason x " "?

 

he don't know what the plan is, so he can't claim it is unconstitutional.  Gromnir don't know what the actual plan is at this point beyond some very vague generalities.  there has been innumerable fed programs and policies related to education. every time such programs is created, somebody screams about the Tenth Amendment. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment  however, thanks to the spending clause and  dakota v. dole (1987), the fed can... persuade states to adopt programs that promote the general welfare. the fed can be mighty persuasive given that there isn't many states that is so independent that they don't rely heavily on fed dollars. constitutionality regarding how much the fed can actual direct the specifics o' a plan such as the community college thing is questionable, but for val to claim unconstitutionality at this point is ridiculous. why do people listen to val?  

 

anytime val talks about law or history, just turn and walk the other way. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Valsuelm]

Thanks for sharing, interesting post

 

And why is it unconstitutional, does the US constitution specifically say  " the federal government must get involved in education for reason x " "?

 

 

To best answer that question, I strongly suggest going and finding out for yourself.

 

You very often have opinions on U.S. policy (both internal and external) that don't jive with what's legal here or just doesn't take into consideration how things are done here (you are certainly not alone in this). While the links I provide below aren't going to give you the whole story, especially in regards to the latter, they contain information that is of paramount import to actually understanding the U.S. and even by extension some aspects of the rest of the world (as the U.S. Constitution has had a good deal of influence world wide). And, of course, they should answer your question.

 

Read these. Do some thinking and considering for yourself, and you'll be ahead of a real lot of other people out there (including, sadly, most modern Americans). Reading it doesn't take long, thinking about it takes a bit longer, but do us both as favor and do so.

 

Here is the full text of the U.S. Constitution:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

 

Here are the amendments to it:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/amendmentstext.html

 

[Note that the pages linked do not note when the amendments were proposed and ratified, which is of no small import in many cases. If you actually read the texts I have linked, then I suggest looking those dates up for better understanding. It certainly helps to have good background knowledge of U.S. history so those dates mean something.)

 

Also, if after you read the above, and do some pondering on your own, you want some answers to some of those ponders, I recommend finding what are known as 'The Federalist Papers' and 'The Anti-Federalist Papers', and reading those. There's more I could recommend in regards to various specifics questions that might arise (ie: various case law), but it's far better to discuss that as it arises and after one has the knowledge I recommend above.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Valsuelm