Obama Proposes 2 Years of Free Community College 703
An anonymous reader writes with news about a White House proposal that would provide 2 years of free community college for good students."President Barack Obama announced a proposal Thursday to provide two years of free community college tuition to American students who maintain good grades. 'Put simply, what I'd like to do is to see the first two years of community college free for everyone who's willing to work for it,' Obama said in a video filmed Wednesday aboard Air Force One and posted to Facebook. He made the announcement as part of his pre-State of the Union tour and will formally lay out the proposal Friday in a speech in Tennessee. The White House estimated it would save the average community college student $3,800 annually and said it could benefit nine million if fully realized."
Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
But still, it might be ok if the covered courses are useful, and not just "community organizer" type courses. That is to say, something that will train for a marketable skill.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Education is already tax-subsidized. There's no way most of us could afford it if it weren't.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of us can't afford it anyways.. takes 20 years to pay it back.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Interesting)
Then you went to the wrong school and took the wrong courses and borrowed too much money.
My first is in college right now, and we are paying just about $600/semester (Plus books) for full time at the local community college. She can go there two years then head to the 4 year state school where the costs is something like $5k/semester plus books. She's going to graduate college with a STEM degree for something like $25K if we get no scholarships. However, I'm guessing her 4.0 thus far might get us a few thousand off that. After that, if she wants to move on to graduate school, she's going to have to look for a job and get her employer to pay for some of that.
My youngest is looking at the same schools for about the same price, though he's 4 years away from starting that.
Your mileage may vary, but if you graduate from college facing a 20 year struggle to pay off the debt, you did something wrong and would have been better off going into one of the skilled trades or something. It never ceases to amaze me when people get 70K into debt going to a 4 year school getting a secondary education degree or something, where the starting annual pay is half their debt load. It's a really stupid move... Not the education, but going into debt like that.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Informative)
My first is in college right now, and we are paying just about $600/semester (Plus books) for full time at the local community college. She can go there two years then head to the 4 year state school where the costs is something like $5k/semester plus books.
Community colleges are great, but a lot of people fall into traps that sound like what you are describing. In >>99% of all cases, a 2-year degree from a community college does not knock off anywhere near 2 years from a 4-year bachelor's degree. Generally that 2-year degree knocks off one year and maybe a couple miscellaneous lib-ed requirements. Yeah, it saves you some money but it costs you some time. You could have gone straight into a 4-year program and - assuming you knew what you wanted to major in (which a lot of kids do not) - graduated in 4 years. Instead you started off at community and now your 4-year degree is taking you a total of 5+ years.
Now, those 5 years might actually be a really good investment. For a lot of kids it certainly is - a lot of kids finish high school without any real ability to adapt to college. Nonetheless it does not lead to the dramatic money savings that many people (or more so, many people's parents) hope for.
It never ceases to amaze me when people get 70K into debt going to a 4 year school getting a secondary education degree or something, where the starting annual pay is half their debt load.
This varies a lot from one state to another but a lot of states now require a master's to teach at primary or secondary level. $70K is actually doing quite well for student loans for a bachelors and a masters. Most physicians - who have generally done only 8 years of school (2 years more than a teacher) - are well into six figures of debt by the time they start a residency.
As for the relation between debt load and salary, I would say that your observation says more about how little we pay our teachers than anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In >>99% of all cases, a 2-year degree from a community college does not knock off anywhere near 2 years from a 4-year bachelor's degree.
It only doesn't if the student decides against taking classes that count towards the four year degree. Where I work, we get nearly 90% of our credits accepted by a real college for the students that move on. Of the ones that don't transfer, the vast majority of them are things like pre-Algebra that doesn't have an equivalent at the good school or a vocational class like welding that someone took just for fun. Because the classes here are so easy, the vast majority of our students get more than a two year
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everyone needs to go to college, If they can't afford it, there are very good living levels to be made by learning a trade. Hell, plumbers around here make more than some GP physicians at the lower levels.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need to worry. This proposal has ZERO chance of becoming law. There is no way that a Republican congress is going to run up the debt to fund Obama's pet project. The only reason that Obama is even proposing it is so the Republicans can reject it, and then the Dems can use it against them in 2016.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't need to worry. This proposal has ZERO chance of becoming law. There is no way that a Republican congress is going to run up the debt to fund Obama's pet project. The only reason that Obama is even proposing it is so the Republicans can reject it, and then the Dems can use it against them in 2016.
I don't know--it's community colleges, which should be relatively appealing to Republicans who like supporting hard workers. Republicans hate social welfare programs, but really like the *image* of the hardworking American. By sticking with community colleges rather than going for the elite schools, this may actually have some chance of getting Republican support.
Americans are really strange (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know--it's community colleges, which should be relatively appealing to Republicans who like supporting hard workers. Republicans hate social welfare programs, but really like the *image* of the hardworking American. By sticking with community colleges rather than going for the elite schools, this may actually have some chance of getting Republican support.
I have to say, Americans are really strange.
Only in America would someone claim, with a perfectly straight face that attending a 4-6 year university is "elite". Are you really that brainwashed?
Do you people not understand the first rule of power? Limit education and knowledge. Keep the people ignorant. It seems they have done such a good job of it that folks actually thinks that uni is only for the elite.
I lived in Germany for several years. At the end of the day, what I pay for taxes is about the same as what I paid in the US. What do I get for my taxes in the US? I get to drive on shitty roads, my kids can go to high school, and there was the worlds largest army by a factor of 10.
In Germany, there is a small army but, my kids get a master or doctorate as they like, I have health care, I drive on great roads, and hell, I can even call the fire department to come a remove some bees in my garden.
It is really strange that all the Jesus people in the US have no moral problem with spending trillions on an Army, but rage about money spent to educate the population and therefore make the country richer and more able to compete against other nations.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The world needs ditch diggers too.
Not everyone needs to go to college, If they can't afford it, there are very good living levels to be made by learning a trade. Hell, plumbers around here make more than some GP physicians at the lower levels.
Yes, but these days in the US, a ditch digger is expected to operate a $100k machine and work without constant supervision to the spec of some detailed plan. Event the trades are going to take extensive training or an apprenticeship. You don't have to go to college, but you'd better get some sort of an education, or you'll be fighting Mexicans for dish washing jobs at a restaurant the rest of your life.
Most schools GUARANTEE transfer of 2-year degree (Score:3)
> a 2-year degree from a community college does not knock off anywhere near 2 years from a 4-year bachelor's degree.
You may be thinking of jacking around taking two years of random classes, as opposed to getting an associate's degree. Or getting a two-year degree in liberal arts and trying to apply it to a four-year degree in the hard sciences. Most community colleges have matriculation agreements with nearby universities. These agreements GUARANTEE that those two years transfer.
Of course you want to lo
do ask the four-year. Also, less prestigious 4-yea (Score:5, Informative)
>. You will need to talk to the 4-year university (not the 2-year college) to see which 2-year college courses apply to what before you take them
Yes. As an example, I live next to Texas A&M. Next to A&M is Blinn, a community college. They have very specific agreements that this two-year degree counts as two years toward this four-year. So IF you plan ahead, you have a guarantee. A large percentage of students follow that plan, both to save money and some students need a good GPA at Blink before they are qualified to be admitted at A&M. That's probably pretty typical of major flagship universities.
The Texas A&M System has six other universities, such as Prairie View. One flagship, six other state schools in the system. Which means MOST state universities aren't the big-name flagships. Prairie View and the others are a bit more lenient on transfer credits. Some accept any class that's ACE accredited - which includes some that aren't even taught by colleges. That class taught by the Forest Service may be ACE accredited and accepted by many non-flagship universities.
I recently went back to school after having run my own companies for twenty years, riding the internet revolution. I chose a university that is a state school in Texas and 18 other states, Western Governors University. It is designed largely for adult students with job experience, so they'll accept all sorts of things for transfer credit. For example, industry certifications; if you have one of Microsoft's or CompTIA's more advanced certifications, they accept that in place of a similar class.
So you don't HAVE to take another three and half years if you already did two. You CAN get your degree from a state university like Prairie View rather than Texas A&M, or you can even do WGU and get credit for that system you designed and built at work, if it proves you know the subject matter.
If you want to go to a major flagship school, the kind where most applicants don't get in, then you better plan ahead and be aware of the specifics of the matriculation agreement.
Source: I manage a campus where we offer ACE accredited courses and have matriculation agreements. We're part of the Texas A&M System, but we're not a university.
Experience from an ex-refugee (Score:5, Interesting)
Community colleges are great, but a lot of people fall into traps that sound like what you are describing. In >>99% of all cases, a 2-year degree from a community college does not knock off anywhere near 2 years from a 4-year bachelor's degree
Lemme chime in with my own experience ...
When I landed on the soil of the United States of America back in the 1970's - yes, I know, it was a long long time ago, but anyway, this is what I had gone through
I spoke no English, I was essentially penniless - unlike those big time defectors, small fly refugees like me never get any financial help from uncle sam. We were already very grateful to be granted asylum and never hope to gain any financial gain in the first place
But anyway, as a penniless refugee who spoke no English my first jobs were in Chinatown. From washing dishes to kitchen helper to chef to waiter, I learned everything, step to step. Meanwhile I saved like crazy (working in a Chinese restaurant we got to eat free and live in very cramped worker quarter free of charge) and I tried my best to learn English any way I could
My first 'investment' in America was the first course I took in community college. It was not actually 'hard', but due to the language difficulties, it took me a while to suit myself in the new and totally different learning environment
First course begat more courses, and I learned of the 'pre-requisite' courses to take that I could transfer to higher learning institutions
So I took all the 'pre-requisite' courses. Of course I already know what I was going to study if I go to real 4-year college, I took all the required math courses, all the basic logic courses, and all the other courses that I could transfer
By the time I enrolled myself in a 4-year college most of the courses I took back in the community college were transferred. Of those courses that they (4-year college) didn't recognize, I took tests to show them that I indeed am knowledgeable enough to be exempted with such-and-such courses
One plus side for me is that most of the math courses that I took in both the community colleges and also in the 4-year college were already 'old stuffs' for me. Back in China we had much *MUCH* tougher math training, when we were in our secondary school (equivalent to 'high school' in the States)
I did the same thing for other degree that I took, including MBA. I took all the pre-requisite courses, such as business laws, economics, accounting, management, marketing, and then transferred them when I finally enrolled into the MBA program
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real scam is that all this free and easy money doesn't go to education. It goes to educators -- educators all too willing to just take all that extra money to provide classes that are "stupid easy".
The students are just mules that move the money from tax payers to professional educators.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
:: Why would you pick classes that wouldn't transfer?
Simple -- you have basically 3 degree options in Community college -- Associates in Arts, Science, and Applied Science. The applied degree consists of classes that generally don't transfer. However, that degree does prepare you for the work place after 2 years (assuming you can find a job that doesn't think of an Associates degree as a failed Bachelors). Whereas the non applied degrees won't give you any job skills, but only prep you for a 4-year college. In any case, it is recommended that a student work with the target 4 year institution, to determine which courses to take at the local community college, and not do it blindly.
However, this is actually a bigger issue. A lot of the high school classes are dumbed down enough that they really don't prepare students for college level courses. So often times students have to take 1 - 2 semesters of additional prep work classes before they can jump into the real college classes. This can even be true if one took "college prep" classes in high school (depending on how crappy the local school district is).
Re:Free? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Transferred credits is not always the same as transferred courses. The major may require additonal prerequisites before taking upper division courses, and if those transferred classes don't qualify then there's extra time to waste. Also you may need to take an entrance test before you can take some classes; just because you took community college calculus 1 does not mean the student is prepared for university level calculus 2. Sure, transferred credits is great for the majors that need lots of credits to
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, depending on the advanced degree she goes for, she should be able to get the school to pay her - acting as a teaching assistant or research assistant is usually nets free tuition and a stipend. Not much of one, but still.
With regard to what people did wrong - they usually listened to their elders who insisted that they HAD to go to college ever since they set foot into 1st grade and filled their heads with visions of gloom and doom, catfood sandwiches and living in cardboard boxes if they didn't go to school. It's no surprise that many young people find it extremely difficult to make sound financial decisions and solid plans for what seems to be a very distant time when they've spent their entire lives being told horror stories about what will happen if they don't do this. I have a very hard time blaming the young people who internalized the endless advice they were given when they act on that advice.
Part of the solution is to quit overemphasizing college where it isn't necessary. Another part of it is for parents to actually be better parents - sounds like you did fine, but a lot of parents take their kids as an opportunity to compensate for their own failings and push them to the point where the kids behave even more irrationally than the norm.
Oh, and another part is to put a cap on what an institution that accepts ANY federal money in the form of grants, tax breaks or backed student loans and grants can actually charge for tuition. Tie the cap to the minimum wage, perhaps - something like 50% of the pre-tax earnings from a 20hr/week job at minimum wage per year. If a university can't figure out how to keep the lights on when charging ~4k/student/year JUST for tuition (let 'em charge whatever they want for housing, so long as it isn't required that students live in campus housing), something has gone off the rails.
Re:Free? (Score:4)
Or more like there's a HUGE field of post-secondary educational opportunities out there besides college or university. And many of them may have more appeal than college/university.
The thing is, well, most parents grew up at a time when "blue collar" jobs were dangerous, generally unskilled, dirty and underappreciated. So the way out was the main office - get a job working in an office (a "white collar" job) and you won't have to endure heat, dirt, grease, oil and managers barking at you all day. And the ticket to a white collar job is ... college or university.
Except things are quite different these days - there's many jobs that are blend of both, and even traditional blue collar jobs are often higher skilled and very much appreciated. And working conditions re far better with worker compensation boards and safety and health boards, etc.
So continuing education in stuff like trades and other areas may appeal more than studying and an office job. And we need to emphasize that these paths are perfectly fine - trade school works for a lot of people, and many don't want to sit in an office all day but be out and about. There's other opportunities as well - aviation for example - covers a whole range from the heavily degreed (which gets you to designing aircraft), to the trained (pilots) to the trades (mechanics). And many still end up with traditional degrees like BSc (pilots often get one, as do mechanics taking accredited programs), BA (airport management is a business) and others. ,
Re:Free? (Score:5, Funny)
The vast majority of people have no problem affording a college degree in the US.
http://www.brookings.edu/resea... [brookings.edu]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/je... [forbes.com]
People ending up with high student loan debts and an inability to pay it back are a small number of people who made a series of bad choices, like going to Harvard or Brown, majoring in Women's Studies or Journalism, and paying for it with student loans. If you do something that stupid, you should have to suffer the financial consequences yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Tuition prices have steadily increased with no jumps matching any of the changes matching changes in student loans and grants for both public and private schools. I find it quite funny that you mocked students attending non-state schools with higher than average job placement rates and pay rates and then argue against competitive private schools. Perhaps you would like students to attend scho
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Most of us" could afford it much easier if we didn't have to pay the taxes for it and could instead save the money, and if education was a competitive market place instead of the underperforming public-sector-union hellhole that it is.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Prices are determined by where willingness to pay meets willingness to sell. Subsidies raise the willingness to pay and therefore raise prices.
In fact I remember from an economics class that this effect has been studied in farm subsidies, I wish I could reference that here but alas it has been a long time.
Let's not forget that fiat currencies and deficit spending also raise prices.
Re:Free? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you mean "There's no way most of us can afford it because it's subsidized"
Prices are determined by where willingness to pay meets willingness to sell. Subsidies raise the willingness to pay and therefore raise prices.
It sounds like you are implying the net cost to the student goes up, which is ridiculous.
So long as you have elasticity of supply, there is no problem. A small increase in gross fees will lead to expansion of colleges and creation of new ones. This takes time, so new subsidies should be announced ahead, and phased in.
In fact, free universal education can actually cost society less per student due to economies of scale, without even considering the social and economic benefits derived from it.
In fact I remember from an economics class that this effect has been studied in farm subsidies,
I'm not sure you grasped why farm subsidies are a bad idea.
Let's not forget that fiat currencies
Oh gawd, not one of those. Economics is hard, I know.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't as bad as you think. If it wasn't subsidized the cost would go down -- it would have to. Maybe schools would have fewer administrators, not as nice of buildings, no football field -- big deal. Also, you already pay for it, you just don't see the cost directly. While this certainly doesn't cover the cost, it would help reduce it.
Not on your life will costs go down if it is subsidized by the government. Costs will go up, way up, for both tuition because the target customers will be able to pay more.
Want proof of that? Consider what happened when student loans got subsidized by the government... Schools sprang up out of nowhere and build huge facilities to draw in students so they could collect tuition from them. The Students where just spending borrowed money so they didn't care that much about the cost and demand when up, prices went up and the schools started to rake in the dough.
Problem was that at the time, student loans would not survive bankruptcy so many students just went to school, got out and once they hit their first financial snag would just file for bankruptcy and be done with it. After 10 years the bankruptcy would fall off your credit report. They did away with this loophole because the lenders (and the fed who was backing the loans) was loosing too much money. Now student loans stay with you until you die, no matter what. And now we have people paying their loans off for their whole lives.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Such as President of the United States?
Re: (Score:2)
As in somebody else pays for it...
That's the only definition of "free" that exists. Even the sunlight isn't "free" by your useless definition. How many innocent Hydrogen atoms died to light your day? Something had to pay, even for sunlight.
With a definition like that, you'd think you'd reset your hate-meter to take the definition of "free = no cost to the user" that works for every use of "Free" you've objected to.
Re:Free? (Score:4, Informative)
How many innocent Hydrogen atoms died to light your day? Something had to pay, even for sunlight.
You've taken pedantry to an entirely new level. Maybe it's you can't understand the difference between "somebody" and "something". Or you don't care.
It's time more people realized that when the government uses the term "free" it truly is a lie, and the word should be reserved to actually mean something instead of being turned into useless filler to keep the politician's lips moving during sound bites.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
The much more popular "no cost to the end user" definition of free is obviously the right one.
It's time more people realized that when the government uses the term "free" it truly is a lie,
The meaning of "free" from the government is obvious to everyone. Only the mentally ill have a problem with using the common word accurately. "no cost to the user" is always the meaning, and I've never seen "free" used inappropriately with that common definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Free? (Score:5, Interesting)
The meaning of "free" from the government is obvious to everyone.
No, sadly, it is not. That's the problem. De Toqueville covered this a long time ago. Even if you assume (an unjustified assumption, I fear) that people do know the true meaning, the fact that they simply don't care that others are paying for it makes the problem just as bad.
This has nothing to do with AOL disks, and yes, ignoring the difference between "somebody" and "something" is significantly more pedantic than any statement that a "free" two years at a CC really isn't free. The main reason "AOL disks" are irrelevant to this is because "AOL disks" are not taxpayer funded, they are voluntarily paid for by AOL out of the profits they make from people who use AOL by their own choice.
When the government extorts money from some people to pay for other people's "free" stuff, the word "free" is being misused in a significant and important way. Trying to handwave the problem away by claiming that even sunlight isn't free because some poor hydrogen atoms had to die is just ridiculous.
Here's some new content: we're already facing the issue of requiring remedial basic math and English classes for incoming university freshmen. Imagine how much worse it will be when those who are passed out of the high schools just to get rid of them start appearing on the doorsteps of the local CC demanding their "free" education. Remedial remedial math, anyone?
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case it is. It is an investment that pays of more than it costs. It in fact better than free, especially since borrowing money right now is free for the government.
Hydrogen atoms can't pay... (Score:5, Funny)
That's the only definition of "free" that exists. Even the sunlight isn't "free" by your useless definition. How many innocent Hydrogen atoms died to light your day?
If you look down in the corner of the horizon you'll sometimes see a little note with the text: "Your daylight is brought to you by God Inc." :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not what 'He' said.
Do you have a degree from a public school? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, get over yourself.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rich aren't going to community college.
I'd rather have an educated society than not. Wouldn't you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Free? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, absolutely.
The older people where I grew up, grew up in a time when high school was not compulsory and was attached with real costs, and most did not partake in it. There is a sharp educational distinction between them and the younger generations which had University at least, and usually University.
(I'm in Canada, so it's not exactly the US system.)
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
the greatest education giveaway in the usa gave rise to the greatest extent of the american middle class in history, and also underlies many of our current racial socioeconomic problems, because it was not fairly allocated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
people who dislike government handouts talk about hard work and meritocracy. but if the poor do not have equal access to education (further exacerbated by plain old racism), then you are creating a class-based, entrenched society where your future success is determined by how rich your parents are or what color they are, not how hard you work
you can work extremely hard but be poor and not have education, and therefore not advance economically. while some lazy rich lay-about depends upon his class's or his parent's connections and get cushy low effort placeholder job
that's not a meritocracy
i am all for people rising or falling depending on the extent of their hard work
but i also am for everyone starting in at least roughly the same place. which requires education supplementation for those born poor. which means, if you believe in meritocracy, you MUST believe in government education handouts to the poor. or else you have a logically inconsistent, contradictory, and incomplete ideology
Re:Free? (Score:4, Insightful)
is being a good hardworking but poor student doing nothing? then a free higher education is not a handout either
you say a free college education is rightful payment for serving in wwii, and i agree. but it was just another new crazy liberal progressive "socialist" "handout" idea from roosevelt's time, like social security
the gi bill can be defined as deserved or undeserved, depending upon how heartless or thoughtful you are
http://www.neh.gov/humanities/... [neh.gov]
think about how you see the gi bill as not an entitlement for freeloaders, but a deserved payment for service, which i agree with. but now think about how some conservative assholes and trolls today think things like funding basic education and basic healthcare are entitlements for undeserved freeloaders. now think about how such ignorant opposition to progress today will be viewed in the future, like you and i read past opposition the gi bill today
everyone deserves a good education. or we do not really live in a meritocracy
Re: Free? (Score:5, Informative)
Not really, then I have to compete with them for jobs.
Economics is not zero sum. More educated people means more companies and industries that require educated workers. Educated people are paid the most where educated people are common (big cities and technology hubs) and are paid the least where educated people are rare (rural areas, and third world countries). That is the exact opposite of what you would expect with a zero sum supply/demand situation.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
But why should I have to pay even MORE in taxes to send someone to college. I may need that money to send my OWN kids to school.
Your kids wouldn't qualify as that "someone" being sent to college on the public dime?
Re:Free? (Score:4, Interesting)
Scholarships are one thing, but when you give free tuition to everybody, the rich don't pay when they could afford to and the working poor wind up having to pay more taxes
I was going to comment on the fact that a large proportion of the poor pay no income taxes and thus won't pay more because of this. Then I remembered that local community colleges are funded through property taxes and so, until the property tax rate is increased or a levy is passed to cover it, nobody will be paying extra for this. And since it is property taxes, the cost of the tax will be proportional to the value of the property. Poorer people will pay less extra when the rate is increased than the rich will.
I suspect that this "free education" will either be yet another unfunded mandate on the states, or paid for by federal income tax increases where the poorest already pay nothing.
What I want to know is what he means by "work for it". What work will these students have to perform to get this "free" education?
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I want to know is what he means by "work for it". What work will these students have to perform to get this "free" education?
I presume he's just talking about students working to maintain a minimal GPA. In other words, work as "effort", not work as "employment".
And yes, of course it will be up to taxpayers to shoulder this additional burden, at a time when the federal deficit is still spiraling out of control. Naturally, that makes it the perfect time to propose expensive new entitlement programs. Precious few people and even fewer politicians care that we're spending ourselves into a real financial mess. There's just too much delicious government gravy to hand out, and no one wants to stop the train.
Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
As usual, it's poor people providing subsidies for the rich.
Rich people pay more in taxes... If not, maybe you should address that... But let it be a separate issue.
I'm constantly surprised at how Americans manage to see the bad in every government service provided. In most other modern countries services such as this is what enables poor people to climb. It's the thing that reduces negative social heritage (you have a lot of that in the US)..
Note, just because a government makes it easier to climb out of poverty does not make it trivial. I've never been poor, but because tuition and living expenses was covered for me during university, doesn't mean I didn't have to work hard to earn a degree.
When everyone has a 2 year degree (Score:2, Insightful)
then no one will. Or rather, the 2 year degree will be worth nothing.
This is just covering the complete failure of the highschool system, and an attempt to buy votes.
We need fewer people in college not more. In many places by 16 you have the 'trade school' kids and the 'college kids'. Hint: craftsmen aren't just guys with a Home Depot credit card, it's hard work and takes time.
Re:When everyone has a 2 year degree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
[quote]You're confusing possession of a piece of paper (fake sheepskin) with knowledge.[/quote]
Sounds like a certain someone didn't go to college and learn the value of sheepskin...
Re:When everyone has a 2 year degree (Score:4, Insightful)
The poster is correct. However what the poster would be missing is the value of a mentor to guide his self research, and the collaboration of his fellow students.
Walk into a library and get a degree in (pick a subject). How do you know WHAT to read? Are you going to miss something fundamental in your studies? How would you know if you did?
Re: (Score:2)
Education is not a zero-sum game.
"free" education costs too much (Score:4, Informative)
In my state they made preschool "free". Within the year the tuition costs tripled from previous levels that were flat the previous 5 years. Every time the government offers something for free it's cost becomes unbearable.
Re:"free" education costs too much (Score:4, Insightful)
Just about every developed country provides free pre-school. But its not a blank cheque to private businesses.
Why doesn't your state run its own preschools? Here they are attached to primary (elementary) schools. Maybe not the same location, but sharing staff, admin etc.
Re:"free" education costs too much (Score:5, Insightful)
You pretty much hit the nail on its head. When most governments take socialist action, it is because of socialist motives (people demanded it). When US takes socialist action, it is because of capitalist motives (businesses lobbied for it). So cost controls, either through regulation or via competition with the public options (in US, public option often ends up being publicly-funded option, rather than publicly-run option) are quickly ruled out as infeasible or unfair for privates. Then everybody nods their heads on how government is not the solution.
This is not to say that a bit of this does not happen in other countries, but seems to be especially problematic in US.
Re:"free" education costs too much (Score:5, Insightful)
Adam Smith's capitalism isn't what is in charge today. Why talk about some idealized version of capitalism that never was, beyond small town bakers that Adam Smith observed (you are not the only one who has read some economics). The world moved on. Its better to read Piketty than Smith to keep up with the times.
BTW, it makes it a lot easier to cuss and complain when you are anonymous, doesn't it. Does it feel good?
Four Years for Associates. (Score:3, Insightful)
Free? Where is the money coming from? (Score:2, Insightful)
If this programs saves its average participant potentially $3,800 annually it seems to do so by having someone else pick up the tab. And Community Colleges like most Colleges in this country are a joke. Just like most High Schools are.
The average College Freshmen in this country reads at a Seventh Grade Level. And now we are going to lower standards even more at Community Colleges so that EVERYONE can at least get a C+ and these schools get more taxpayer money shoveled into them. Let's lower standards even
Re: (Score:3)
The big difference is college isn't legally required. The only students who will go are those who want to go, and colleges won't be inclined to let kids slip through with a D-minus-minus just to get them through the system. The reason people graduate HS practically illiterate is because you can't force someone to learn. Make it optional, and require passing grades to stay in, and the problem is solved. If you don't pass, you don't get to go. If you fail, you're disqualified from the free program. (I would i
Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
We don't need a 13th and 14th grade to fail to teach students what K-12 failed to teach them. Because that's what this would end up being; not a start on post-secondary education, but an extension of high school.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
That isn't the case in other countries with free college education (i.e. most of Europe).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
WRONG!
as I posted just a few minutes before, many of us use (used) community colleges as a way to save a LOT of money on the 'useless first 2 years' that is mostly BS anyway. english is english; chem 101 is chem 101. calc 101 is calc 101, no matter where you go (for all intents and purposes).
I LOVE the idea of us finally giving our own people a direct benefit to the huge riches that are locked away in this country. there's zero reason why we can't fund 100% of our people to go to school! other MUCH LESS
Bad webdesign, cant RTFA (Score:2)
Obvious... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's incredibly affordable with the amount of federal, state, and county money already subsidizing community colleges to pick up the last 5-10%. This is more likely a program to entice mediocrity into buying into federal school loans for universities after 2 years at the community college level. The GPA requirement is clearly a troll move unless we're going to get honest as a country and start making the 2.5-3 range GPA kids take trades classes at the community college.
Even worse, by making the 2 years free, many students will be skating by on a lot of electives and "fun" classes which will keep them in the perpetual life student mindset. This is the same error that came with making parents responsible for their children's health insurance until they are 25.
Lastly, this is finally saying that the K-12 system is broken and we're not going to fix it. What better way to say that a HS diploma is worthless than making an Associate's degree a freebie.
If you want to incentivize hard work, pay for the last year at a university for students who finish "on time" in 4-4.5 years.
Re:Obvious... (Score:4, Informative)
The federal school loan program is turning out to be wildly profitable new tax program for the federal government. The loans are exempt from bankruptcy and are typically $40+k per student.
I don't know where you're getting your data, but you should never trust that place again. The average is less than $30k [usnews.com], you can discharge it [usnews.com] in bankruptcy [usnews.com], and it's not profitable for the government [wsj.com]. It would be, if everyone always paid their loans, but then the banking crisis never would have happened, either.
Re: (Score:3)
What's your problem, do you have giant loans and the earlier post gave you a brief glimmer of hope that you could get them discharged or something? If you took the money and spent it on a car and fun in college, it's so sad that you have to pay it back now.
I'm still paying (Score:2)
Let's do the math (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The Dept of Education budget was 67.3B last year, your 68.4B number is for 2 years. The projected cost is 34.2B/year so it's roughly half the Department of Education budget. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a different debate.
The Derek Zoolander Program (Score:2)
"2 years of free community college for to good students." -- Derek Zoolander
As an aside, with so many states trying to deal with failing high schools (and the horribly ill-prepared young adults they are producing), now we want to pump these kids through "college". Yeah. Right. Between 'Idiocracy' and the "first wave" spaceship of over-credentialed "professionals" written about in H2G2, you'd think we, as a culture, would see what is going on here. But nope. So I'm sure this will happen and be billed as a re
Awesome (Score:2)
Just what I needed back when I was a kid. 2 more years of high school with the potential that afterwards I'll have a sizeable debt coming out of it if I screw off those years like I did when I was a junior and senior.
Whats the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be far more effective to train people in basic programming skills and back office operations and bring the jobs back from India, Ireland, Israel and Indonesia. Costs there have gone above the US minimum wages, when you factor in all the costs of offshoring.
Re: (Score:3)
What about our trade schools? (Score:4, Interesting)
We already have droves of graduates who can't find jobs because they paid for a degree with little useful application; now we'll have droves of graduates who can't find jobs because the taxpayer bought them a degree with little useful application. Why not, instead, train a generation to build things and to fix things by expanding the trade schools?
Keep going... Free College to all with good grades (Score:5, Interesting)
And instead of bailing out banks, we could have paid off 70-90% of the mortgages directly.
GP is wrong, but not totally off base (Score:3)
That may be wrong, but not as far off as you think. Given a flat distribution of 0-70 year olds (to make the math easier), and 4 years of free college, with 1/2 the 12 graders going to college, it's closer to $2100 per person per year, which just under 1/4 of the in-state college tuition average of $9400/yr.
As for the mortgages, there are 13.6T in mortgages. Bailing out the banks was only a couple trillion (all told), but since 2000, we've spent approximately 8.3T on defense alone (not including DHS, CIA, N
Actung ! (Score:3)
Perhaps our education-overlords are worried too many Americans will learn to speak German and head over to Deutschland so they can get a quality education without going into life crushing debt :|
Nachrichten für Nerds Deutsch [thinkprogress.org]
Ain't nothing free (Score:3)
Government subsidies just jack up the price for everyone. It benefits the poor, harms the middle class, has minimal impact on the wealthy.
Nature of education (Score:3)
Education is an investment in the economy, not a 4-year paid vacation.
Of course, investment is not a guarantee of benefit or cost-effectiveness.
Already free. (Score:3)
Around here community collage is already nearly free. As long as you are a resident of the county and have at least a part time job the grants you get cover a lot of stuff.
Of course if republicans that get mommy and daddy to pay for expensive but useless private schools realized it is a way for poor adults that want to work into a better career, they would probably have the community colleges shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
The teacher's unions will make sure everything stays affordable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
because EO's have to follow the law and president's can't write them at will. even if Obama did write one like that there would be no funding for it since all funding bills originate in the House of Representatives and every program has to be funded by law. he can't just take a pot of money and spend it as he sees fit. every program and line item in the budget has to be approved by both houses of congress
Re: (Score:3)
amnesty for illegals is a constitutional power to overturn a criminal conviction. for ACA, read the law. most of them are vague enough to give the president a lot of leeway. and go read your own link. unfunded mandates are laws passed by congress
maybe you should go back to high school for some remedial social studies?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They'll both fight it because it cuts into the profiteering of the ECMC Group. These are the debt collectors who have just taken over Corinthian to transform their schools into "non-profit" so that they can keep the federal student loan money train flowing which in turn guarantees a steady stream of defaults that they can profit from.
Free education from the federal government will be lobbied against heavily by these parasites.
Re: (Score:2)
It helps to solve the student loan problem by having the first 2 years paid for, essentially halving the cost of a 4-year degree.
Everyone could already make quite a dent in the cost of their college educations if they went to CC for the first two years now. You don't even have to make it free for it to have a significant impact on the price of a bachelor degree.
Plus it could help churn out more trades professionals (HVAC, plumbers, welders, etc.)
If your grades are good enough to take advantage of this, then you aren't going to want to settle for being a plumber looking for work when you get done.
Re:great news for corporations and politicians (Score:5, Insightful)
And why is he doing it? Not because it helps students, but because it appears to lower youth unemployment and reduces the need for corporations to train people themselves slightly.
How is giving every kid with good grades the opportunity to get more than a high school education without having finaces be an overriding consideration?
Of course it helps the students. The best thing in the world to improve the odds for success in life is more education.
And the first 2 years of college/university are worlds apart from what you learned in grade 12.
but because it appears to lower youth unemployment and reduces the need for corporations to train people themselves slightly.
Fascinating world view you have there.
That's two years out of the workforce, two years of not paying into retirement, and no benefit, since those students will simply be competing against each other for the same jobs anyway.
Good point. We should end public education at grade 4. Its just years they aren't in the work force, and of no benefit since they'll just be competing each other for the same jobs anyway; and all it does is reduce the need for corporations to train people themselves.
I mean, everyone does work for a corporation right? There aren't ~20 million sole-proprieterships in the country. And there certainly aren't another 40 million+ people working for small to medium businesses.
It's a gigantic ripoff, both of students and tax payers.
Seriously. Sarcasm off. More available education is one of the best things we can do for the country. This isn't no-child-left-behind sillyness... this is about making sure students who can and would succeed at post-secondary school get to go.
What would be a better use of tax dollars in the long run?
Re: (Score:3)
True, more available education is one of the best things for the country. But public funding for education reduces available education and causes prices to rise as a simple glance at actual educational reality shows you.
I mean, most of our secondary school system and much of our tertiary educational system is publicly financed, we have some of the highest per-student K-12 spending in the world (second only t
Re: (Score:2)
Any reason I got +5 for saying the same thing before?
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
Have a plan! (Score:3)
The important part is use this as part of YOUR plan for YOUR education. Like you did.
Community Colleges are great for taking care of the 100 level pre-requisites prior to University.
Community Colleges are great at expanding your knowledge WITHOUT going for a degree.
Community Colleges are great for bringing up your Grade Point Average (GPA) if you had problems in High School but still want to pursue an advanced education.
Etc.
This program should NOT be the FINAL step in your education.
Re: (Score:3)
It could be argued that the debt is so high because they didnt do this first.
A lot of issues in the US are not the result of spending too much. Its that they spend at the wrong place. If you end up with millions over millions of uneducated people, you then need safety nets and programs to pick them up, as well as spending millions in law enforcement and all that garbage when crime rate goes up.
Its one of those things where if you don't put the money there, it costs you way more later.
Re: (Score:3)
There's other things they should do first though.
Not everyone is fit to go get a bachelor degrees. Some people don't have the aptitude for it. Some are just not interested. Some don't have the patience. Some made mistakes and are stuck with kids and can't commit that far. Some just don't feel like it.
The US is messed up in that its a country where if people don't recognize the college you went to, they make you feel like you're a nobody. That leaves a significant portion of the population feeling like they
Re: (Score:3)
"Sorry," said the socialist. "I need to confiscate all that money to redistribute to others. This redistribution will have the effect of subsidizing and promoting single parenthood and general sitting-on-behinds by non-productive members of society. But they will vote for me, so it's all cool."
The communist, meanwhile, shrieked, "When the revolution comes, you'll both be the first a