Can we discuss the relative merits and drawbacks of tuition-free community college?

[GoodGrief]

5 hours ago, EmseB said:

But if they fail the class and it's required for graduation, they've used up some of their benefits that they can't get back.

Interestingly, most people I was in the service with (and myself included) used their GI Bill to...get a degree by going to school. I mean, I'd imagine there are some scammers out there, but not enough to clear out a campus with the number of vets not showing up for class.

I was wondering how that would work myself, but I'm not clear if it perhaps occurred during an era with looser restrictions. We had to pay the GI Bill program back when my daughter dropped out for a semester for health reasons, and document her issues fairly thoroughly. Perhaps an outright fail is a different situation though.

[Clemsondana]

I don't have an opinion yet, but I do have 2 bits of anec-data.  I was a TA at UGA when Georgia first implemented the HOPE scholarship.   They set a grade requirement of 3.0.  The problem is that it was billed as making college accessible, but it didnt allow C students to continue - for every C, you had to get an A, so if your grades were all Bs with 1 C, you lost your scholarship.  There were kids who could clearly do the work, but not at a 3.0 level...and thus grade inflation.  Nobody wants to be the one who causes a student to drop out of school because they lost their scholarship when you can just bump their 88 to an A, since clearly they can do the work...and then all of the 88s become As...  

And now, as one of the many TN folks on this board, I can say that many of my high school students dual enroll for their senior, and sometimes junior, years.  2 years ago a student talked with me at the end of the semester - he was completely disillusioned.  He had hoped that, once he took college classes, the small number of 'non-participants' that he dealt with co-op would not be in college classes, but he said that the CC classes were worse, and the instructors had to walk through everything, nobody did assigned prep, etc.  I think that the free school made it easier for students to see it as 'grade 13' - a place to go if they didn't know what they wanted to do.  Unfortunately, some use up their allowance of 'free CC' without gaining many credits or career direction, and then all they have to show for it is a low GPA that pulls down their average when they do figure out what they want to do.  I think the 2 years can be fantastic for motivated students who are working towards a goal, but it can also lead to a watering down of classes when colleges are under pressure to retain a certain percentage of students and more than that percentage is only there because it's free and they don't know what else to do.  

[shawthorne44]

I would support this even at the expense of 4-year funding, i.e. no grants for the first year at a 4-year school, but CC tuition and student fees are free.  I realize that grants are federal, and the plan under discussion is state-level.   I say that just to show how good of an idea I think it is.   I know that this isn't a new idea.   I was talking to an old guy who mentioned that he only had to pay for books back in the day.   Someone upthread mentioned the waste of non-interested students signing up and then never showing up.   That made me think of all the people I know who went to college for less than a year because they partied so hard.   That seems MUCH less likely to happen at a CC.  

 

[SereneHome]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

Plenty? Not nearly enough.

 

I guess it all depends on how you look at it.  We keep trying to find way to pay for college instead of 1) trying to lower the actual costs and 2) trying to figure out why and who should really be going to college.  But yes, I think there are a large number of big and small scholarships, based on various criteria that exists today.  In addition, of course, to various aids that student can get. 

[Caroline]

24 minutes ago, ClemsonDana said:

I don't have an opinion yet, but I do have 2 bits of anec-data.  I was a TA at UGA when Georgia first implemented the HOPE scholarship.   They set a grade requirement of 3.0.  The problem is that it was billed as making college accessible, but it didnt allow C students to continue - for every C, you had to get an A, so if your grades were all Bs with 1 C, you lost your scholarship.  There were kids who could clearly do the work, but not at a 3.0 level...and thus grade inflation.  Nobody wants to be the one who causes a student to drop out of school because they lost their scholarship when you can just bump their 88 to an A, since clearly they can do the work...and then all of the 88s become As...  

Multiple studies have shown that the HOPE scholarship did not and does not cause grade inflation either in high school or at the university level. 

Anecdotally, I was a TA at Georgia Tech at that same time. I saw no evidence of it there. 

[Crimson Wife]

2 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

I would support this even at the expense of 4-year funding, i.e. no grants for the first year at a 4-year school, but CC tuition and student fees are free.  I realize that grants are federal, and the plan under discussion is state-level.   I say that just to show how good of an idea I think it is.   I know that this isn't a new idea.   I was talking to an old guy who mentioned that he only had to pay for books back in the day.   Someone upthread mentioned the waste of non-interested students signing up and then never showing up.   That made me think of all the people I know who went to college for less than a year because they partied so hard.   That seems MUCH less likely to happen at a CC. 

I disagree with this. The flagships in my state don't have a big problem with students flunking out. At both UC Berkeley and UCLA, 96% of freshman admits return after the first year and the overall graduation rate is 91%. I don't think students who demonstrate the academic preparation and work ethic required to win admission to a flagship should be forced to start at a CC instead.

I think the issue is with students who have undistinguished high school records. Some of them may be "late bloomers" and actually do well at the CC. If they graduate with their associate's and a decent GPA, my belief is that they deserve the chance to finish up their bachelor's cost-free for low-income folks and at a reasonable % of income for middle-class ones.

[Crimson Wife]

An example is my middle brother's fiancee. She and her sister grew up poor but both excelled in high school and attended UCLA. Both ultimately earned graduate degrees from UCLA (future SIL is a lawyer and her sister is a cognitive psychologist). Should they really have been forced to start at CC just because they needed grants to pay for college?

[Scarlett]

5 minutes ago, Crimson Wife said:

An example is my middle brother's fiancee. She and her sister grew up poor but both excelled in high school and attended UCLA. Both ultimately earned graduate degrees from UCLA (future SIL is a lawyer and her sister is a cognitive psychologist). Should they really have been forced to start at CC just because they needed grants to pay for college?

Bcause CC is inferior?  

Elitism at its finest. 

[regentrude]

7 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Bcause CC is inferior?  Elitism at its finest. 

CCs vary greatly. The academic rigor of CC courses is often not on par with the rigor of a good four year university, and there are great differences in rigor between universities as well. Many of my transfer students struggle with the level of academic expectations at the university and comment that it is much higher than at their CC. We have the direct comparison in certain courses that "equivalent" courses are not, actually, equivalent. Students admit that they take their math at a local CC because it is easier than at our engineering school. It is not elitism to acknowledge that these differences.

A student capable of more rigorous classwork should have the opportunity to attend an institution where he is challenged.

 

[Scarlett]

7 minutes ago, regentrude said:

CCs vary greatly. The academic rigor of CC courses is often not on par with the rigor of a good four year university, and there are great differences in rigor between universities as well. Many of my transfer students struggle with the level of academic expectations at the university and comment that it is much higher than at their CC. We have the direct comparison in certain courses that "equivalent" courses are not, actually, equivalent. Students admit that they take their math at CC because it is easier than at our engineering school. It is not elitism to acknowledge that these differences.

 

that isn t what she said though.  

[fairfarmhand]

5 hours ago, regentrude said:

Plenty? Not nearly enough.

Yep. 

Plenty if you are low income or minority or brilliant. 

For average students in middle class or upper middle class it’s difficult. Families don’t have enough money to pay for college for multiple kids without jeopardizing retirement savings but aren’t low income enough to qualify for the best scholarships. This is just for state schools. We could probably swing 1 child’s tuition and squeeze out 2. But there’s no way we could afford 4 college tuitions. 

ETA: without the state scholarships that we have. My kids would have to take out student loans were we to live someplace where hope was not available.

[Crimson Wife]

30 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Bcause CC is inferior?  

Elitism at its finest. 

The UC flagships are ABSOLUTELY more rigorous than the UC-transferable courses at the CC. That's not to say that students who transfer to Berkeley and UCLA from the CC's can't do well (plenty rise to the challenge). But high-achieving high school students should not be FORCED to start at the CC's by a blanket policy barring grant money from being used for freshman year at the UC's.

[madteaparty]

26 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

that isn t what she said though.  

Listen we can cry elitism all day long but there’s people graduating today with a 4 year degree whose work doesn’t equal that of a high schooler. I should hope the former didn’t have to pay for their degree. 

And for those saying free tuition means no skin in the game? There’s the not inconsiderable cost of living and also opportunity cost. Free tuition is not free college. As someone who will never use this program, I think we need more “free” education not less.

[Liz CA]

14 minutes ago, Crimson Wife said:

The UC flagships are ABSOLUTELY more rigorous than the UC-transferable courses at the CC. That's not to say that students who transfer to Berkeley and UCLA from the CC's can't do well (plenty rise to the challenge). But high-achieving high school students should not be FORCED to start at the CC's by a blanket policy barring grant money from being used for freshman year at the UC's.

 

Well, this may be just the case because of this particularly well run CC but dh was told math classes anywhere else would be easy after having passed math at this CC - and he said later they were right. I have also heard of Berkeley that getting admitted may be tough but the coursework does not distinguish itself much from say Cal Poly or UC Davis and all of those have articulation agreements with local CCs.

Also, I don't know of anybody who was ever asked where they completed General Ed. I did not complete GE in this country. Nobody has ever cared as long as they can read my transcripts and verify the degrees I have.

As far as OP's concerns, I cannot really comment because it seems - after what I am reading here - that the quality of CCs varies so widely that indeed some people may not be able to be admitted to a 4-year university and this is very sad to me. A certain degree of academic standards should be found in all CCs across the country. In CA though, I have not ever heard that someone regretted not spending money on full tuition during the first 2 years or that they have not been able to transfer as long as they passed their classes with a reasonably good grade.

[gardenmom5]

12 hours ago, fairfarmhand said:

We have this in Tennessee. 

Things not so good: the biggest is that students who are not really interested in college sign Up for classes, attend for 2 months and then drop out. I think of all that wasted money. 

Our program is for all students who get a c average or higher regardless of income. However, there are stipulations. There are community service hours that are mandatory. Also it won’t give you cash if you have other scholarships. In other words, they look at your other scholarships and will give you money up to the full cost of tuition but nothing more. My dd dropped the scholarship because she didn’t need it due to her other funding and didn’t want the hassle of keeping up with the mandatory meetings, commUnity service hours, and paperwork. 

Also, it can be used toward an associates at a 4 year institution but not at the full cost, just the cost of cc. 

Our program features mandatory meetings and college mentors that students have to keep in touch with. 

 

my sons did CC for the first two years of their BA/BS degrees - they graduate next year. (2ds plans on a MBA - so, cc doens't have to be "all there is", but a jumping off point.)   and depending upon the school - and the student - doing the first two years at a cc can get more hands on with a teacher for those lower level classes. as well as being a lot cheaper (it's about $100 per credit hour here.)

 

However-

there is not just the wasted taxpayer money from kids who drop out after two months - but they taking class space from students who really want to be there, and are ready to do the work.  those students get delayed in getting needed classes, and can really mess up their educational plans AND opportunities.

one of the problems about running start where I live, (where the state pays for high school students to attend CC) - you have kids who aren't motivated to actually be there and actually do the work.   it stays on their record - so when they are finally "ready" to be the student they need to be to be successful  - they have that as a handicap if they want to transfer to a state school to get a bachelor's degree.

 

[EKS]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

Bcause CC is inferior?  

Elitism at its finest. 

I'd be willing to wager that there isn't a CC in the world that is on par with UCLA.  That's not elitism--that's a fact.

[Roadrunner]

I like that community college is very low cost in CA because it gives people opportunities to go back to school and retrain if needed. I think that’s very important if we are going to have a flexible labor force. 

I also would like to see the cost of trade schools to come down. I was told to train as an electrician (as an example) was very costly. 

I do see a lot of wasted resources because some (especially younger ones) don’t take it seriously, but I think the pros faaaar outweigh the negatives. 

I would like to see more state initiatives to fund some kids throughout college. I know Florida provides free education to those with certain scores/grade. 

[Liz CA]

47 minutes ago, EKS said:

I'd be willing to wager that there isn't a CC in the world that is on par with UCLA.  That's not elitism--that's a fact.

 

This may be the case but we are veering off OP's concerns / questions. Are tuition free CCs regarded as inferior compared to an institution that is not tuition free? I see it more as a need for academic standards across the board. Those states that can and want to offer free tuition at CC level should offer it but without a certain academic standard, it would seem that the topic of tuition is not even the most important one but rather the topic of which CC is most rigorous. Evidently you can have tuition free CCs with rather high standards and CCs that require tuition with subpar standards as well.

[Carol in Cal.]

4 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Bcause CC is inferior?  

Elitism at its finest. 

I live in the same area, and actually CC IS inferior.

You can learn comparable writing skills, say, but you're not going to have the history prof that was on NPR last week and who can make the Puritans absolutely come alive at the CC.  There is a meaningful difference in engagement at the university level compared with the CC.

[Guest]

I think the income delineation (in this case) is just plain awkward as a discussion point IRL. Household income is never a point of discussion, but this possibly makes it one. I have already witnessed this before the bill was signed. Friend A says something like, “I did hear there’s going to be an income requirement of <$125k.” And Friend B chuckles incredulously and says, “Well we won’t have any problem there!” Meanwhile, Friend A shifts uncomfortably because they know or suspect they won’t meet the income delineation and now it would be crass to say so. 

I do also wonder how that works with families whose income is variable and, in any one year, may or may not meet that delineation, because that is the circumstance I expect for my youngest child, if we plan to utilize the CC plan. 

[scholastica]

4 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I live in the same area, and actually CC IS inferior.

You can learn comparable writing skills, say, but you're not going to have the history prof that was on NPR last week and who can make the Puritans absolutely come alive at the CC.  There is a meaningful difference in engagement at the university level compared with the CC.

That definitely varies from place to place. I live in an area with many colleges and universities. With the limitation of tenured positions and most being adjunct or associates, many of the professors who teach at one of the two elite universities here also teach at the CC. One of my ds' friends got her CC professor to write her a recommendation to the elite university because he also teaches there.

[ktgrok]

I think the big issue is that the CC degree transfer to the state 4 yr schools. If they do, then when you finish your Bachelors no one will know or care that you did the first 2 yrs elsewhere. They just know you have a BA from the state 4 yr school. If you just get the AA, then I think that won't matter that it is an AA from a CC versus and AA from a 4 yr school...AA is already seen as less than, you know?

Here, finishing an AA gives you rights to enter the 4 yr colleges. So many do it to save money, then transfer and no one cares because the final degree is from the "better" school.

[Scarlett]

18 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I think the big issue is that the CC degree transfer to the state 4 yr schools. If they do, then when you finish your Bachelors no one will know or care that you did the first 2 yrs elsewhere. They just know you have a BA from the state 4 yr school. If you just get the AA, then I think that won't matter that it is an AA from a CC versus and AA from a 4 yr school...AA is already seen as less than, you know?

Here, finishing an AA gives you rights to enter the 4 yr colleges. So many do it to save money, then transfer and no one cares because the final degree is from the "better" school.

And this is the problem.  That is the snobbery......'oh you only have a 2 year degree.  Off with your head.'  I mean good grief. 

I think some of those people who view things in this light might be shocked to find a great number of people are living happy productive lives with a simple little less than AA.  Or shockingly enough no degree. 

Happiness on earth isn't just for high achievers.

[Scarlett]

2 hours ago, Quill said:

I think the income delineation (in this case) is just plain awkward as a discussion point IRL. Household income is never a point of discussion, but this possibly makes it one. I have already witnessed this before the bill was signed. Friend A says something like, “I did hear there’s going to be an income requirement of <$125k.” And Friend B chuckles incredulously and says, “Well we won’t have any problem there!” Meanwhile, Friend A shifts uncomfortably because they know or suspect they won’t meet the income delineation and now it would be crass to say so. 

I do also wonder how that works with families whose income is variable and, in any one year, may or may not meet that delineation, because that is the circumstance I expect for my youngest child, if we plan to utilize the CC plan. 

But Quill this is the way things have been for a long time.  The haves and the have nots.  

[Ravin]

20 hours ago, Crimson Wife said:

As a taxpayer, I'd rather see a guarantee that all low-to-moderate income students who graduate from a CC with a decent GPA can finish their bachelor's at one of the state schools cost-free. I think making the LAST 2 years of college free rather than the first 2 years would cut down on wasted resources because it would only go to students who have demonstrated the ability and work ethic to handle college. Right now we waste a TON of money on students who don't last more than a semester or two.

 

That does nothing to help the many, many students who will seek out CC for the vocational programs, not for prereqs to a bachelor's. I would be very happy to see CC become free here, because DD plans to go to cosmetology school, and while there are voc ed programs that would allow her to complete it in high school, I don't think she's going to be able to because those programs allow no accommodations for LD's. She's going to need more time and maturity and the space to focus on just her vocational education, which will make community college the better option (even now it's less expensive than a private cosmetology school).

This view basically views completing some post-high school education for students like my DD as "wasted resources."

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

But Quill this is the way things have been for a long time.  The haves and the have nots.  

True, but it doesn’t tend to intrude much upon my hsing community ordinarily. It is one of the elements I specifically like about being in the hs community. The focus on economic status is remote in most instances. It’s noticeably different from the conversation that prevades non-hsing groups. 

[regentrude]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

I do also wonder how that works with families whose income is variable and, in any one year, may or may not meet that delineation, because that is the circumstance I expect for my youngest child, if we plan to utilize the CC plan. 

Probably by year, just like it works now with need based aid? Fill out FAFSA, college determines whether you are eligible based on income in that prior year.

[catz]

7 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I live in the same area, and actually CC IS inferior.

You can learn comparable writing skills, say, but you're not going to have the history prof that was on NPR last week and who can make the Puritans absolutely come alive at the CC.  There is a meaningful difference in engagement at the university level compared with the CC.

Well, I don't think it's just about faculty quality.  I would go as far to say that the faculty quality at our urban CC is better than some of the more rural privates that people pay a premium for in our state.  I have done direct comparisons of educational background and accolades out of interest.  My son has had passionate and amazing profs at his CC.  Including published authors and again, many cross over to more competitive colleges in town to teach as well.   And as an aside, one of my kids prof was featured as an expert on public radio here recently.  LOL.   He was named as a prof at elite LAC and not the CC.  

When we toured Northwestern, they basically said you're paying for an academic community when you get an education there.  And I do think that is the difference.  I think high achievers are less likely to find their peer groups in a CC setting.  I have a rising senior with a 99% ACT score and a 4.0 dual enrollment GPA who is enjoying the classes at profs at a CC but isn't connecting with anyone socially or academically.  There are a lot of non-typical students.  If you are first gen or an immigrant, there is a large community built in for you there.  Which I love.   There are AMAZING success stories out of our CC that bring me to tears and impress me more than the child of privilege at an elite school.  However, students less likely to feel like they fit somewhere, are more likely to drop out and less likely to stay motivated.  And I do think many more competitive 4 years will go deeper and provide more rigor.  Some students are just ready for that.  These are students more likely to go on to higher degrees and I do agree they should be as supported as other kinds of learners.   My kid is very much looking forward to moving on to a University after this year.   Anyway - I do think there should be good affordable opportunities for achievers at ALL levels.

I do think there are elistist types that might look down at an AA.  Heck there are types that look down on anything but a top 20 college.  But if you have votech training geared toward a particular career, that is what you need.  If you have an AA, your degree is probably not super useful unless you complete it as a 4 year degree.  At the end of the day, employers are looking for employees with certain type of training.  Who cares what a few snobs think.  Trust me, those snobs still using plumbers, electricians, cabinet makers, and cosmetologists.  Our society needs those types too so I think everyone should at least be given a shot.  At my kid's CC, you can't just keep going if you're failing classes.  There is academic probation leading to being kicked out if you're not succeeding.  There are many safe guards and opportunities to succeed, but you have to be motivated and jump in and use them.   So I do think success does require a higher degree of maturity than high school.  

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Quill said:

True, but it doesn’t tend to intrude much upon my hsing community ordinarily. It is one of the elements I specifically like about being in the hs community. The focus on economic status is remote in most instances. It’s noticeably different from the conversation that prevades non-hsing groups. 

Oh, I know.  I see the difference when I speak to my sister who works at a high paying job in down town Houston and whose kids are in public school and all sorts of elitist type activities....club volleyball, club cheer....Very different world from mine. 

But don't let it bug you too much.  You are still the same person you were before you had to admit to anyone that you don't qualify for free CC.  And they are still the same person they were before they assumed out loud that most people do qualify for free CC.  

It is true that high achievers and kids on a path for academic greatness might not want to even start at a CC.  That fact--which is individual specific----should not affect the value of a CC.  If it is a crappy CC well, then don't go there.  Find a CC that has a good reputation...

[Scarlett]

6 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

Well, I don't think it's just about faculty quality.  I would go as far to say that the faculty quality at our urban CC is better than some of the more rural privates that people pay a premium for in our state.  I have done direct comparisons of educational background and accolades out of interest.  My son has had passionate and amazing profs at his CC.  Including published authors and again, many cross over to more competitive colleges in town to teach as well.   And as an aside, one of my kids prof was featured as an expert on public radio here recently.  LOL.   He was named as a prof at elite LAC and not the CC.  

When we toured Northwestern, they basically said you're paying for an academic community when you get an education there.  And I do think that is the difference.  I think high achievers are less likely to find their peer groups in a CC setting.  I have a rising senior with a 99% ACT score and a 4.0 dual enrollment GPA who is enjoying the classes at profs at a CC but isn't connecting with anyone socially or academically.  There are a lot of non-typical students.  If you are first gen or an immigrant, there is a large community built in for you there.  Which I love.   There are AMAZING success stories out of our CC that bring me to tears and impress me more than the child of privilege at an elite school.  However, students less likely to feel like they fit somewhere, are more likely to drop out and less likely to stay motivated.  And I do think many more competitive 4 years will go deeper and provide more rigor.  Some students are just ready for that.  These are students more likely to go on to higher degrees and I do agree they should be as supported as other kinds of learners.   My kid is very much looking forward to moving on to a University after this year.   Anyway - I do think there should be good affordable opportunities for achievers at ALL levels.

I do think there are elistist types that might look down at an AA.  Heck there are types that look down on anything but a top 20 college.  But if you have votech training geared toward a particular career, that is what you need.  If you have an AA, your degree is probably not super useful unless you complete it as a 4 year degree.  At the end of the day, employers are looking for employees with certain type of training.  Who cares what a few snobs think.  Trust me, those snobs still using plumbers, electricians, cabinet makers, and cosmetologists.  Our society needs those types too so I think everyone should at least be given a shot.  At my kid's CC, you can't just keep going if you're failing classes.  There is academic probation leading to being kicked out if you're not succeeding.  There are many safe guards and opportunities to succeed, but you have to be motivated and jump in and use them.   So I do think success does require a higher degree of maturity than high school.  

Amen!

[SKL]

Faculty quality may or may not be a factor.

Perhaps a bigger factor is what the students are looking for.

When my parents went to college as mature adults with kids and jobs, they didn't go there to hear a prof wax eloquent on a variety of literary works.  They went to develop and document marketable skills.  They could enjoy literature in other seasons when they weren't working all day, studying all night, and being parents somewhere in between.

 

[SKL]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

I think the income delineation (in this case) is just plain awkward as a discussion point IRL. Household income is never a point of discussion, but this possibly makes it one. I have already witnessed this before the bill was signed. Friend A says something like, “I did hear there’s going to be an income requirement of <$125k.” And Friend B chuckles incredulously and says, “Well we won’t have any problem there!” Meanwhile, Friend A shifts uncomfortably because they know or suspect they won’t meet the income delineation and now it would be crass to say so.

 

Friend A did not need to bring up the income requirement as a concern, knowing that it could highlight a difference that didn't need to be highlighted.

This consideration is not new.  Federal student loans, for example, have always been need based.

[Liz CA]

35 minutes ago, Quill said:

True, but it doesn’t tend to intrude much upon my hsing community ordinarily. It is one of the elements I specifically like about being in the hs community. The focus on economic status is remote in most instances. It’s noticeably different from the conversation that prevades non-hsing groups. 

 

The income parameters do make it more "complicated" on several levels. No employer though would know if a student was in the no-tuition income bracket or not nor should it matter as they are receiving the same education as the paying students...as long as the education meets certain standards that open the door for continuing education.

Are you concerned that people will now spend their time trying to figure out who was in the no tuition bracket?

I prefer the no tuition across the board waiver we have here in CA. As you pointed out, it will get cumbersome for some to figure it out if income fluctuates yearly or there is a separated household / parents situation.

[SKL]

General off-topic muse ... I wonder why it is uncomfortable to talk about kids' financial aid but not their scholarships?  Isn't it just as elitist to say how great your kids' genetic material is as it is to say how fat your bankroll is?  ?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Friend A did not need to bring up the income requirement as a concern, knowing that it could highlight a difference that didn't need to be highlighted.

This consideration is not new.  Federal student loans, for example, have always been need based.

Right, but the conversation is different because there is an assumption in general that if your kid is going to CC, one of two things are likely:

A) There is a desire or need to reduce costs as much as possible, and/or

B) The student will not gain admission to a 4-yr due to grades, scores, motivation, ability or some combination of those things. 

If Friend B sends a kid to Uni. of MD in part accessing a Pell Grant, that is outwardly not inferrable as a contrast to Friend A, who is sending a kid there with no grant because they don’t qualfy for assistence. 

[Serenade]

22 hours ago, regentrude said:

For most subjects and most universities, students cannot be turned down once they pass the Abitur. They don't "apply", the just sign up.

 

 

But the Gymnasium with the concluding Abitur is still a high school option that is limited to only the best students, right?   Or has that changed over the years? Three of my German cousins went to Gymnasium, and I believe they were selected for this path at fairly young ages.  Maybe it is no longer done this way? My cousins are all in their 50s now. 

 

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, Quill said:

Right, but the conversation is different because there is an assumption in general that if your kid is going to CC, one of two things are likely:

A) There is a desire or need to reduce costs as much as possible, and/or

B) The student will not gain admission to a 4-yr due to grades, scores, motivation, ability or some combination of those things. 

If Friend B sends a kid to Uni. of MD in part accessing a Pell Grant, that is outwardly not inferrable as a contrast to Friend A, who is sending a kid there with no grant because they don’t qualfy for assistence. 

Interesting.  I wouldn't think either one of those things. Neither is why my ds is going to CC. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

The income parameters do make it more "complicated" on several levels. No employer though would know if a student was in the no-tuition income bracket or not nor should it matter as they are receiving the same education as the paying students...as long as the education meets certain standards that open the door for continuing education.

Are you concerned that people will now spend their time trying to figure out who was in the no tuition bracket?

I prefer the no tuition across the board waiver we have here in CA. As you pointed out, it will get cumbersome for some to figure it out if income fluctuates yearly or there is a separated household / parents situation.

I am concerned that more people will assume that the CC student attended there because it was “free.” There is already an assumption that a CC student is attending there for reduced costs and/or because they could not gain acceptence at a 4-yr. I would go so far as to say that those two assumptions are accurrate in the large majority of cases, especially for recent graduates of high school. (There is clearly more variation in reason amongst the older students who are doing a career change or enhancement or attending for the first time as mature adults.) 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

General off-topic muse ... I wonder why it is uncomfortable to talk about kids' financial aid but not their scholarships?  Isn't it just as elitist to say how great your kids' genetic material is as it is to say how fat your bankroll is?  ?

Personally, I am uncomfortable when people talk about scholarships based on merit. I think sometimes the person telling me about the scholarship is deflecting their own discomfort about the sticker price of the school. So, they are willing to say, “Junior got a $15k scholarship to go to Bougie College!” Because they don’t want people to think they are bragging about sending their kid to an expensive school. 

[Guest]

Quote

en we toured Northwestern, they basically said you're paying for an academic community when you get an education there.  And I do think that is the difference.  I think high achievers are less likely to find their peer groups in a CC setting.  I have a rising senior with a 99% ACT score and a 4.0 dual enrollment GPA who is enjoying the classes at profs at a CC but isn't connecting with anyone socially or academically.  There are a lot of non-typical students.  If you are first gen or an immigrant, there is a large community built in for you there.  Which I love.   There are AMAZING success stories out of our CC that bring me to tears and impress me more than the child of privilege at an elite school.  However, students less likely to feel like they fit somewhere, are more likely to drop out and less likely to stay motivated.  And I do think many more competitive 4 years will go deeper and provide more rigor.  Some students are just ready for that.  These are students more likely to go on to higher degrees and I do agree they should be as supported as other kinds of learners.   My kid is very much looking forward to moving on to a University after this year.   Anyway - I do think there should be good affordable opportunities for achievers at ALL levels.

I agree very much with everything you said here, @FuzzyCatz. 

[G5052]

I've been teaching at community colleges for twenty years and am currently a 3/4 time professor (no benefits, sigh). I teach four online sections a semester, and three in the summer. This school and the one my kids go to have strong transfer agreements to "name brand" schools including several "public Ivies." My son transferred to a top-20 4-year on a very strict guaranteed admission agreement after receiving an award as the top business student across three campuses. Enrollment in state community colleges has actually flattened and dropped over the last few years. I know a number of adjuncts who are no longer teaching there because they are being much more strict about how many sections they offer and are applying seniority and ratings to choose which adjuncts do get sections.

My state has floated proposals for free community college, but there would be strict score requirements for ACT/SAT and income requirements. From everything I've read, very little would change in terms of the reputation of our degrees. Enrollment would likely increase which might push out some students who register late.

My kids have had great experiences at the community colleges. Of course there are some students who shouldn't be there, but they have always had good professors and plenty of other students in their classes who were serious about it. My older one has larger classes at the 4-year now and has commented that many of his community college professors were better than the 4-year. So they have their place.   

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, Quill said:

I am concerned that more people will assume that the CC student attended there because it was “free.” There is already an assumption that a CC student is attending there for reduced costs and/or because they could not gain acceptence at a 4-yr. I would go so far as to say that those two assumptions are accurrate in the large majority of cases, especially for recent graduates of high school. (There is clearly more variation in reason amongst the older students who are doing a career change or enhancement or attending for the first time as mature adults.) 

Not sure why that is a "concern." 

Don't most people send their kids to public school because it is "free"?  Does it "concern" you that people will assume that is why someone didn't send their kids to private school?  I can imagine this being a concern in very few geographical areas.

Isn't it a bigger concern that some people feel unable to attend college at all due to financial reasons?

Maybe I'm just dull because I didn't have one cent for higher education and it wasn't because of anything I'm ashamed of.

[G5052]

17 hours ago, regentrude said:

Plenty? Not nearly enough.

 

Our experience was that merit aid is very, very rare and only goes to a very few at the state schools. Even at the private schools, the merit aid wasn't going to make it reasonable without taking out over $100,000 or so in loans. I have friends whose kids are doing that. 

[regentrude]

21 minutes ago, Serenade said:

But the Gymnasium with the concluding Abitur is still a high school option that is limited to only the best students, right?   Or has that changed over the years? Three of my German cousins went to Gymnasium, and I believe they were selected for this path at fairly young ages.  Maybe it is no longer done this way? My cousins are all in their 50s now.

yes and no.

Tracking starts in 5th grade. About 50% of all students attend a gymnasium (so it is not very selective) and take the Abitur after 12th grade. Students who did not go on the college prep track graduate highschool after 10th grade and have the option of completing a three year program to get the Abitur. My niece went that route.

In addition, it is possible to sit the Abitur examinations without attending a gymnasium or college prep course at all. You can self study and sign up for the tests (Nichtschuelerabitur)

Nowadays it is also possible to attend certain universities/majors without ever having completed the Abitur.

ETA: It should also be mentioned that the education system is very different and US "college" does not equal a German university. Many paths that would be "college" in the US are taught at non-university institutions and do not require the Abitur - nursing school, for example.

[G5052]

Duplicate.

[TravelingChris]

My observations of community colleges here is that there are used as vocational training as much as for first two years of college, if not more for that.  CCs here are not free but are low cost, at least compared to regular university classes.  My state has lots of great scholarships for 4  year schools (not government funded) and many kids take advantage of those.  Our church has a senior day every year and the kids make a poster about their interests and future plans.  Just about every year, there is usually one kid going to a CC.  Out of the ones I remember, one was because of finances, and the others were generally people who were not really into academics or weren't all that clear as to what they wanted to do.  The homeschoolers I knew mostly went to 4 year except I did know one who was going for a specific 2 year degree at CC and another who was starting CC because he had learning disabilities and anxiety and that was thought to be an easier way for him to start.

 

[Serenade]

10 minutes ago, regentrude said:

yes and no.

Tracking starts in 5th grade. About 50% of all students attend a gymnasium (so it is not very selective) and take the Abitur after 12th grade. Students who did not go on the college prep track graduate highschool after 10th grade and have the option of completing a three year program to get the Abitur. My niece went that route.

In addition, it is possible to sit the Abitur examinations without attending a gymnasium or college prep course at all. You can self study and sign up for the tests (Nichtschuelerabitur)

Nowadays it is also possible to attend certain universities/majors without ever having completed the Abitur.

ETA: It should also be mentioned that the education system is very different and US "college" does not equal a German university. Many paths that would be "college" in the US are taught at non-university institutions and do not require the Abitur - nursing school, for example.

 

I think some of these changes were definitely needed.  One of my German friends (also in her 50s) went to nursing school and graduated.  Later she wanted to study music therapy, because she had always loved music and wanted to combine her two interests.  However, at that time, music therapy was a university track, and she was not able to get into the university because she hadn't attended Gymnasium and taken the Abitur.  There were no other options for her at that time. 

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, SKL said:

Not sure why that is a "concern." 

Don't most people send their kids to public school because it is "free"?  Does it "concern" you that people will assume that is why someone didn't send their kids to private school?  I can imagine this being a concern in very few geographical areas.

Isn't it a bigger concern that some people feel unable to attend college at all due to financial reasons?

Maybe I'm just dull because I didn't have one cent for higher education and it wasn't because of anything I'm ashamed of.

Because there is already bias against people from lower economic strata. If two college grads are applying for a job opening and one has lived a Vinyard Vines upper lifestyle, while the other scraped up from a hillbilly background to get to this position, the upper-lifestyle applicant has a greater likelihood of getting the job unless the hillbilly-cum-graduate can fakeout the hiring partner. 

I don’t think it compares adequately to public school because public school has been de facto for a long time and the segment sending his to private school for K-12 has always been a much smaller portion of the population. 

To your middle paragraph, though, YES I do think it is very important for people of less means to access college. It is THE reason I am glad this bill was signed. 

One thing that needs to be rectified IMO is to be sure that kids know there is help available for those of lesser means. When I graduated high school, all I had ever heard was that college was too expensive and was not for people like us. I didn’t even have any idea how one gets in to a college and pays for it, nor did I know a single thing about privates, publics, junior colleges. I had no idea what those terms even meant or how they applied to me. 

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, Quill said:

Because there is already bias against people from lower economic strata. If two college grads are applying for a job opening and one has lived a Vinyard Vines upper lifestyle, while the other scraped up from a hillbilly background to get to this position, the upper-lifestyle applicant has a greater likelihood of getting the job unless the hillbilly-cum-graduate can fakeout the hiring partner. 

I don’t think it compares adequately to public school because public school has been de facto for a long time and the segment sending his to private school for K-12 has always been a much smaller portion of the population. 

To your middle paragraph, though, YES I do think it is very important for people of less means to access college. It is THE reason I am glad this bill was signed. 

One thing that needs to be rectified IMO is to be sure that kids know there is help available for those of lesser means. When I graduated high school, all I had ever heard was that college was too expensive and was not for people like us. I didn’t even have any idea how one gets in to a college and pays for it, nor did I know a single thing about privates, publics, junior colleges. I had no idea what those terms even meant or how they applied to me. 

This is just how this unjust world works and will continue to work.  Your best bet is to put it out of your mind and live your best life. 

[SKL]

10 minutes ago, Quill said:

Because there is already bias against people from lower economic strata. If two college grads are applying for a job opening and one has lived a Vinyard Vines upper lifestyle, while the other scraped up from a hillbilly background to get to this position, the upper-lifestyle applicant has a greater likelihood of getting the job unless the hillbilly-cum-graduate can fakeout the hiring partner. 

I don’t think it compares adequately to public school because public school has been de facto for a long time and the segment sending his to private school for K-12 has always been a much smaller portion of the population. 

To your middle paragraph, though, YES I do think it is very important for people of less means to access college. It is THE reason I am glad this bill was signed. 

One thing that needs to be rectified IMO is to be sure that kids know there is help available for those of lesser means. When I graduated high school, all I had ever heard was that college was too expensive and was not for people like us. I didn’t even have any idea how one gets in to a college and pays for it, nor did I know a single thing about privates, publics, junior colleges. I had no idea what those terms even meant or how they applied to me. 

Personally I don't think there is anything shameful about coming from a working class background.  I am proud of what my parents accomplished and what I accomplished.  I don't care to work for people who are stupid about it.  When I did have a job with people who cared, it was a sucky job and I might have been better off not accepting it.

The options for financing higher education will not change how different people view each other.  But it can open doors for like-minded people to work together.  Remember that many successful business people came from the working class, or otherwise relate well with working class people.  They will be happy to hire degreed people from working class backgrounds.  Those people in turn are likely to build successful businesses for the next generation of degreed working-class people.  Who cares if there are also some people who think themselves too good to interact with us.  Their loss.