Obama to Propose Free Community College

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

The only real issue in education is the community that the school is in.  I teach in a great community, my kids score tremendously on any test I give them.  My wife teaches in a difficult urban setting where kids deal with gangs and drugs.  They test terribly.  Is my wife a worse teacher than me because of that?  Of course not, in fact she has to work harder because of all the discipline issues.  Is her school more run down?  No, it's actually a bit nicer, they get more funding because of their socio-economic population.  We have the same curriculum across the state, we even go to the same trainings.

 

Credit or blame for a failing school system falls heavily on one thing - the parents.

There is no polite way to ask this, are your wife's students black? Cause that would explain the gangs, drugs and ignorance.

 

Yea.. because only blacks are involved in gangs, do drugs, or are ignorant.

 

Retardo stereotype and Racist much?

 

Yeah, go teach at an inner city school with a black majority. You'll see what i'm talking about, every teacher that I've met through my mother has similar horror stories about working on black schools which range from the comical to the tragic. Luckily the ones that are close to my family have been comical.

 

I didn't take you for one of those people that get offended when one mentions race.

 

 

I didn't get offended. In over 25 years of internet forum perusing I've yet to get offended by someone's post.

 

However, there's been a heckuva lot of racism on this forum the last few days, and my tolerance for racist and uberignorant remarks is generally near nil normally. It's absolutely ignorant and racist to say that the because the kids are black that is the problem. I could show you predominately Caucasian, Hispanic, or Native American schools (I know of no other ethnicity that dominates a modern 'problem school' in the US, but I'm sure they are out there on planet earth somewhere) with similar problems to an 'inner city school with a black majority' that might be a nightmare to teach at. The problem isn't he color of someone's skin, or even necessarily the ethnic culture, the problem generally is the socio-economic background their parents hail from, but it isn't even just that, because there are plenty of good parents out there (of all ethnicities) that are poor for one reason or another. Why school X might be a nightmare to teach at or learn at always has a number of factors behind it, and those factors can and do vary from district to district. Skin color however, is never one of them.

 

I didn't take you for a racist and thought you smart enough to realize what I stated above, but rarely does such a thing rear it's head right away with anyone.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Hurlshort]

The crazy part about those inner city schools is that there are a number of students who feel safer there than they do at home.  When we get closer to winter or summer break, they start acting out.  A few would even rather be in Juvenile Hall than spend two months at home.  

 

 

As for the good parents pulling their kids out of all the public schools, I completely disagree.  Those parents are often more concerned with controlling their children and limiting exposure to different ideas.  Considering how often Val talks about brainwashing, he seems quick to support people who wrap their children in a protective bubble.  As a public educator, I don't have time to brainwash these kids, there are too many of them and I have too much stuff to cover.  It is really up to the individual student to make what they will of a public school education.  I just throw a bunch of tools on the table and let them build what they will.  Clearly I am simplifying a very complex process that goes on over the course of a school year, but that isn't far from the mark.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Hurlshot

[Guard Dog]

I haven't read this thread, and I'm really not up to that mentally right now. Let me just say that nothing is "free". The state of Georgia already has free CC for anyone who attended K-12 in the state, all paid for by the state lottery. I'm all for that. But this is nothing the federal government should be involved in. This isn't it's job, this is not it's responsibility, if it were about subsidizing a state effort to some extent that would be different but it's Uncle Sam coming into the State House, shoving them around and saying "You will do this".

 

That is not a good thing.

[Orogun01]

I haven't read this thread, and I'm really not up to that mentally right now. Let me just say that nothing is "free". The state of Georgia already has free CC for anyone who attended K-12 in the state, all paid for by the state lottery. I'm all for that. But this is nothing the federal government should be involved in. This isn't it's job, this is not it's responsibility, if it were about subsidizing a state effort to some extent that would be different but it's Uncle Sam coming into the State House, shoving them around and saying "You will do this".

 

That is not a good thing.

Its a popularity grabber, student debt is high so he does a gesture to support students.  Just not lowering my payments or giving me a government job so that I can pay them.

[licketysplit]

Let me guess, this will be financed by "the rich"?

Well, it could be. They have money to spare compared to the rest of us. Better and more educated society and all that.

[Namutree]

 

 

However, there's been a heckuva lot of racism on this forum the last few days, and my tolerance for racist and uberignorant remarks is generally near nil normally. It's absolutely ignorant and racist to say that the because the kids are black that is the problem. I could show you predominately Caucasian, Hispanic, or Native American schools (I know of no other ethnicity that dominates a modern 'problem school' in the US, but I'm sure they are out there on planet earth somewhere) with similar problems to an 'inner city school with a black majority' that might be a nightmare to teach at. The problem isn't he color of someone's skin, or even necessarily the ethnic culture, the problem generally is the socio-economic background their parents hail from, but it isn't even just that, because there are plenty of good parents out there (of all ethnicities) that are poor for one reason or another. Why school X might be a nightmare to teach at or learn at always has a number of factors behind it, and those factors can and do vary from district to district. Skin color however, is never one of them.

 

I didn't take you for a racist and thought you smart enough to realize what I stated above, but rarely does such a thing rear it's head right away with anyone.

 

That's kinda and untrue at the same time. Black majority areas are more likely to have more problem students. There is a reason for that though; not to sound like a broken record, but this thanks to the damn drug war. The drug war targets blacks the most, and thus screws up their communities the most. This is a big part of why the socio-economic situation for many blacks isn't so good. 

 

Ending the drug war would do far more good for education than free community college; especially for poor black communities.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Namutree

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

However, there's been a heckuva lot of racism on this forum the last few days, and my tolerance for racist and uberignorant remarks is generally near nil normally. It's absolutely ignorant and racist to say that the because the kids are black that is the problem. I could show you predominately Caucasian, Hispanic, or Native American schools (I know of no other ethnicity that dominates a modern 'problem school' in the US, but I'm sure they are out there on planet earth somewhere) with similar problems to an 'inner city school with a black majority' that might be a nightmare to teach at. The problem isn't he color of someone's skin, or even necessarily the ethnic culture, the problem generally is the socio-economic background their parents hail from, but it isn't even just that, because there are plenty of good parents out there (of all ethnicities) that are poor for one reason or another. Why school X might be a nightmare to teach at or learn at always has a number of factors behind it, and those factors can and do vary from district to district. Skin color however, is never one of them.

 

I didn't take you for a racist and thought you smart enough to realize what I stated above, but rarely does such a thing rear it's head right away with anyone.

 

That's kinda and untrue at the same time. Black majority areas are more likely to have more problem students. There is a reason for that though; not to sound like a broken record, but this thanks to the damn drug war. The drug war targets blacks the most, and thus screws up their communities the most. This is a big part of why the socio-economic situation for many blacks isn't so good. 

 

Ending the drug war would do far more good for education than free community college; especially for poor black communities.

 

Actually I always chalk it up to Black Culture, Rap and all that other gang related stuff. I really wish liberals would stopped their collective gasps at everything just so that the problem of black crime can be analyze. It just seems inconceivable to me that a minority group manages to commit so many crimes and have such high rate of recidivism plus some members seem to have such a resistance towards education when they have all to gain from it. 

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

However, there's been a heckuva lot of racism on this forum the last few days, and my tolerance for racist and uberignorant remarks is generally near nil normally. It's absolutely ignorant and racist to say that the because the kids are black that is the problem. I could show you predominately Caucasian, Hispanic, or Native American schools (I know of no other ethnicity that dominates a modern 'problem school' in the US, but I'm sure they are out there on planet earth somewhere) with similar problems to an 'inner city school with a black majority' that might be a nightmare to teach at. The problem isn't he color of someone's skin, or even necessarily the ethnic culture, the problem generally is the socio-economic background their parents hail from, but it isn't even just that, because there are plenty of good parents out there (of all ethnicities) that are poor for one reason or another. Why school X might be a nightmare to teach at or learn at always has a number of factors behind it, and those factors can and do vary from district to district. Skin color however, is never one of them.

 

I didn't take you for a racist and thought you smart enough to realize what I stated above, but rarely does such a thing rear it's head right away with anyone.

 

That's kinda and untrue at the same time. Black majority areas are more likely to have more problem students. There is a reason for that though; not to sound like a broken record, but this thanks to the damn drug war. The drug war targets blacks the most, and thus screws up their communities the most. This is a big part of why the socio-economic situation for many blacks isn't so good. 

 

Ending the drug war would do far more good for education than free community college; especially for poor black communities.

 

 

'Kinda and untrue'?

 

Come again?

 

What is untrue about what I stated? Are you defending and adding to Orogun01's blatant racism?

 

And there are 'problem students' and drug abusers in nearly every if not every public school district out there, even those that are comprised by a very large majority of upper class wealthy white people. I speak from experience. Perhaps you just watch too much TV? Or really haven't thought about what you're saying? Or are you really just completely ignorant of the fact that there are oodles upon oodles of kids nationwide that are not black who are in or on their way to being in gangs, do drugs, and other not so good things.

 

I gotta say here. To be clear I'm not offended. But I am a bit disgusted at just how many people on this forum are turning out to be bonified racists (the thread on the recent mass murder in France has a number them), and I'm beginning to question the merits of me actually reading this forum, let alone posting here.

[Valsuelm]

The crazy part about those inner city schools is that there are a number of students who feel safer there than they do at home.  When we get closer to winter or summer break, they start acting out.  A few would even rather be in Juvenile Hall than spend two months at home.  

 

 

As for the good parents pulling their kids out of all the public schools, I completely disagree.  Those parents are often more concerned with controlling their children and limiting exposure to different ideas.  Considering how often Val talks about brainwashing, he seems quick to support people who wrap their children in a protective bubble.  As a public educator, I don't have time to brainwash these kids, there are too many of them and I have too much stuff to cover.  It is really up to the individual student to make what they will of a public school education.  I just throw a bunch of tools on the table and let them build what they will.  Clearly I am simplifying a very complex process that goes on over the course of a school year, but that isn't far from the mark.

 

'Controlling their children and limiting exposure to different ideas.'

 

You have a very uninformed or ignorant view of why parents would not send their kids to public school. Perhaps this is just some more of your contempt for Average Joe citizen on display then? If all drivers are idiots and untrustworthy, then certainly they aren't capable of teaching their own children to at least the joke of a level that modern public schools require.

 

That said, I'm really curious as to what different ideas you think a kid might and should be exposed to at a public school that they won't be exposed to elsewhere in life if they are home schooled or sent to a private school.

 

While no doubt there are some parents out there that might fit the bill that you think most do, out of the dozen and a half or so people I personally know who are homeschooling their kids (I know a lot more who send their kids to private schools, including one of my sisters (who went to a public school herself) who actually doesn't live far from you) not one of them fits your bill and I guarantee all of them will be far better educated and score better on all the standardized tests ever thrown at them than even most above average public school kids. One thing common amongst most home schooled kids is that they learn far more and far quicker than their public school counterparts, as they aren't held back from learning like so many are in public schools (especially under 'common core') and benefit from parents actively interested in and participating in their kid's education.

 

What one might learn in school aside, as I previously mentioned, many public schools are becoming very toxic places. It's not a matter of wrapping your kid up in a protective bubble, it's a matter of not subjecting your kid to what is BS in the best light. My own old high school, which I very much enjoyed being at when I was there, has become what I'd consider an Orwellian nightmare with all sorts of insanity from police tasing kids for telling them to bleep off, to kids who got in a fight but didn't start it suspended for an entire school year under zero tolerance policies, to kids being suspended for a week because they discussed having a food fight on facebook, to other insanities (that are increasingly common throughout the US). No way would I send my kids to it now. If it was like it was when I went to school I wouldn't hesitate, but back then police weren't staffed at the school let alone tasing kids, a fight might get your suspended for a couple of days if you were the one that started it, and actually participating in a food fight would get you a detention or three (I know.. I got em) as opposed to just talking about having one getting you suspended for a week.  One of the major high schools the next city over is far worse, an honor student kid was beat to death and stabbed not to long ago as he was walking home from school by a group of other kids from his high school in a gang (and guess what, they weren't black) over some trivial argument. Schools all over are not like they were two decades ago and more now, and just about all of the changes are decidedly for the worse.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Namutree]

 

'Kinda and untrue'?

 

Come again?

I forgot a word there. Here is what I meant to type:

 

That's kinda true and untrue at the same time.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Namutree

[sorophx]

Here's a good presentation on some aspects of it:

holy crap.

 

the stuff that he talks about is unbelievable. it sounds like something from some dystopian story. I will have to take his word for it, since I don't live in the US and have no idea how public education works there.

 

if, indeed, what he says is true, then I think someone is simply trying to sabotage the whole public education system.

 

I mean, seriously, algebra pushed into high school? are they crazy? I had calculus in 10th grade.

Edited January 10, 2015 by sorophx

[Walsingham]

Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the standard education in your 'public' schools, rather than layering things on top of them?

[Gfted1]

 

Let me guess, this will be financed by "the rich"?

Well, it could be. They have money to spare compared to the rest of us. Better and more educated society and all that.

 

 

Sure, sure. Its always somebody else's problem to solve your problems.

 

 

Disclaimer: "Your" is not you.

[Meshugger]

What is this Common Core-thing and why is it bad/good?

[Hurlshort]

What is this Common Core-thing and why is it bad/good?

 

Here is the actual standards: http://www.corestandards.org/

 

As for the algebra thing that sorophx, brought up, it is false.  My school has already adopted the standards.  It is also part of our mission statement to have all students take algebra by 8th grade, there is no conflict there.  Some of our students are taking Geometry by 8th grade.  Common core is not forcing students to work at a lower level than they are capable of (or rather it isn't making it worse than it already is.)  When I can't challenge my high level students, it has a lot more to do with the 36 students in each class than any of the curriculum or standards.  

 

This is probably the most telling part:

 

 

 

The Common Core is not a curriculum. It is a clear set of shared goals and expectations for what knowledge and skills will help our students succeed. Local teachers, principals, superintendents, and others will decide how the standards are to be met. Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms.

 

So all this fearmongering about brainwashing by the government is ridiculous.  As I've said, there are plenty of legitimate complaints about Common Core, but most of what is being bandied about the media is false.

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the standard education in your 'public' schools, rather than layering things on top of them?

 

 

Education reform is a big business, pumping out a new program is profitable.  You should see all the junk mail I get on Common Core.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Hurlshot

[sorophx]

going back to math for a second, I remember having algebra and geometry in fifth grade, that's when Soviet schools would begin teaching it to kids. Not sure why you'd wait until 8th grade. what's there to do in math without algebraic equations and trigonometry for 8 years?!

[Cultist]

[Amentep]

I haven't read this thread, and I'm really not up to that mentally right now. Let me just say that nothing is "free". The state of Georgia already has free CC for anyone who attended K-12 in the state, all paid for by the state lottery. I'm all for that. But this is nothing the federal government should be involved in. This isn't it's job, this is not it's responsibility, if it were about subsidizing a state effort to some extent that would be different but it's Uncle Sam coming into the State House, shoving them around and saying "You will do this".

 

That is not a good thing.

 

Georgia's program isn't free for all and isn't limited to Community College.

 

The Hope Scholarship is for students who graduate high school with a specific GPA target who go to state run (University System of Georgia) colleges and universities. It is easy (very, very easy) to lose for students in their first semester.

 

The Hope Grant is a similar but slightly different program for the state run technical colleges (TCSG).

 

 

This is probably the most telling part:

 

The Common Core is not a curriculum. It is a clear set of shared goals and expectations for what knowledge and skills will help our students succeed. Local teachers, principals, superintendents, and others will decide how the standards are to be met. Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms.

 

So all this fearmongering about brainwashing by the government is ridiculous.  As I've said, there are plenty of legitimate complaints about Common Core, but most of what is being bandied about the media is false.

 

The fearmongering about government brainwashing (and I find it a bit "tin foil hat territory") revolves around the fact that while the Common Core itself is goals and expectations, book companies trying to maximize their profits will pretty much force states to either follow whatever California ("crazy liberals") or Texas ("crazy creationists") goes with.

[Hurlshort]

I remember the last textbook adoption I went through (10 years ago!) California could only get three publishers to meet their standards.  So our choices were slim.  We actually ended up going with a small publisher that was based in California instead of one of the other two big ones.

[BruceVC]

Guys I'm going to be honest I am missing what the objection to this idea is. I have tried to understand it but clearly I'm missing something..but I need to ask a very relevant question and then I'll make my main point 
 

• Are these Community Colleagues the same as university? In other words you need at least  your grade 12 and then you basically get a degree at the Colleague ?

[Amentep]

Guys I'm going to be honest I am missing what the objection to this idea is. I have tried to understand it but clearly I'm missing something..but I need to ask a very relevant question and then I'll make my main point

• Are these Community Colleagues the same as university? In other words you need at least  your grade 12 and then you basically get a degree at the Colleague ?

Community Colleges are colleges that 'service the community'. This may mean a wide degree of things, but typically they offer associate level collegiate degrees and various amounts of community/career enrichment courses. They are usually open access - particularly to those within their community. With the proper accreditation, an associates degree from one may serve as the first two years of a baccalaureate degree.

 

The objection to the idea as I understand it is based on how it'll be paid for (federal taxes).

[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.

 

Some students go to these schools for the first two years of university on their way to completing a Bachelor's degree, as they are generally much cheaper than going directly to the four year school for all four years. This, along with the fact that some have programs where you can learn a trade, is generally what Community Colleges are good for.

 

The quality of education at most community colleges is not that high, and it's often referred to as '13th grade', and filled with people who are not serious about their education but have bought into the notion that one should go to college after high school if one wants to succeed. A great deal of what your average community college teaches is what students should have learned in junior high and high school.

 

Community colleges are already affordable to everyone. Obama saying it should be free is a PR stunt and a move in the direction of nationalizing the university system here, as his administration has moved in the direction of nationalizing the health care system and education systems here.

[BruceVC]

 

Guys I'm going to be honest I am missing what the objection to this idea is. I have tried to understand it but clearly I'm missing something..but I need to ask a very relevant question and then I'll make my main point

• Are these Community Colleagues the same as university? In other words you need at least  your grade 12 and then you basically get a degree at the Colleague ?

Community Colleges are colleges that 'service the community'. This may mean a wide degree of things, but typically they offer associate level collegiate degrees and various amounts of community/career enrichment courses. They are usually open access - particularly to those within their community. With the proper accreditation, an associates degree from one may serve as the first two years of a baccalaureate degree.

 

The objection to the idea as I understand it is based on how it'll be paid for (federal taxes).

 

 

 

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.

 

Some students go to these schools for the first two years of university on their way to completing a Bachelor's degree, as they are generally much cheaper than going directly to the four year school for all four years. This, along with the fact that some have programs where you can learn a trade, is generally what Community Colleges are good for.

 

The quality of education at most community colleges is not that high, and it's often referred to as '13th grade', and filled with people who are not serious about their education but have bought into the notion that one should go to college after high school if one wants to succeed. A great deal of what your average community college teaches is what students should have learned in junior high and high school.

 

Community colleges are already affordable to everyone. Obama saying it should be free is a PR stunt and a move in the direction of nationalizing the university system here, as his administration has moved in the direction of nationalizing the health care system and education systems here.

 

These views are very interesting and they may have changed my initial point

 

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?

[Amentep]

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 great deal of what your average community college teaches is what students should have learned in junior high and high school.

This isn't more true for community college than any part of the liberal arts program at a university's first two years are (general lit, general history, general science, etc).

 

However as access institutions they do tend to have larger programs and capacity to handle students who need preparatory skills in English or mathematics.

 

 

These views are very interesting and they may have changed my initial point

 

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?

Define "proper degree". A lot of it depends on the mission of a the college. A community college with a skill mission may heavily focus on career skills and technical skills (it might be part liberal arts and part technical school). A community college with a transfer focus may focus on providing a general education for students to transfer to traditional four year baccalaureate programs.

 

They don't have "subpar education" unless there is something wrong with the college (or they're not appropriately accredited by a proper regulating authority).

Edited January 12, 2015 by Amentep

[BruceVC]

 

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 great deal of what your average community college teaches is what students should have learned in junior high and high school.

This isn't more true for community college than any part of the liberal arts program at a university's first two years are (general lit, general history, general science, etc).

 

However as access institutions they do tend to have larger programs and capacity to handle students who need preparatory skills in English or mathematics.

 

 

These views are very interesting and they may have changed my initial point

 

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?

Define "proper degree". A lot of it depends on the mission of a the college. A community college with a skill mission may heavily focus on career skills and technical skills (it might be part liberal arts and part technical school). A community college with a transfer focus may focus on providing a general education for students to transfer to traditional four year baccalaureate programs.

 

They don't have "subpar education" unless there is something wrong with the college (or they're not appropriately accredited by a proper regulating authority).

 

 

 

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 great deal of what your average community college teaches is what students should have learned in junior high and high school.

This isn't more true for community college than any part of the liberal arts program at a university's first two years are (general lit, general history, general science, etc).

 

However as access institutions they do tend to have larger programs and capacity to handle students who need preparatory skills in English or mathematics.

 

 

These views are very interesting and they may have changed my initial point

 

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?

Define "proper degree". A lot of it depends on the mission of a the college. A community college with a skill mission may heavily focus on career skills and technical skills (it might be part liberal arts and part technical school). A community college with a transfer focus may focus on providing a general education for students to transfer to traditional four year baccalaureate programs.

 

They don't have "subpar education" unless there is something wrong with the college (or they're not appropriately accredited by a proper regulating authority).

 

 

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