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

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I completely disagree with this statement.  I think probably just as many people root for the underdog, if not more.  When we were doing college interviews for our college, one question that we always asked was is there something difficult you had to overcome in life.  Why?  Because overcoming difficulties successfully breeds character and so yes, for the hillbilly applicant.  It is harder for a person of very limited resources to make it successfully through college and through life.  But people cheer that.   I do not hire people and never have but my husband has had a career of hiring, choosing for promotion, choosing people for awards, etc. And he has the exact opinion as I do- no favoritism to those who have it easy.

No, I disagree that it works that way. In coming from a poor background, people don’t know what they don’t know. Upbringing leaves a mark. Even how nice your teeth and skin look is strongly tied to the wealth or lack of it with which you grew up. Poor people don’t pay for braces; wealthier people do. The linguistic markers one uses provides strong hints to socio-economic level; it is why my mother forbid us from saying “ain’t got no...” though we were poor. 

I remember one time the office manager at a firm where I worked said she had a habit of watching out the window when an interviewee was expected because she wanted to see how their car looked. So, essentially, she was already forming a prejudice about the candidate before they even arrived at the door. 

People only cheer it once you have risen above your upbringing. Fewer people are willing to boost someone up before that upbringing has been overcome. 

[scholastica]

45 minutes ago, regentrude said:

As I suggested, one possibility is a loan that is forgiven if the student applies himself and is successfully passing his classes with a decent GPA. You can flesh it out by giving a grace period of one semester so students who started out floundering can turn their way around.

But I honestly do not see a need for taxpayers to fund tuition for students who are either not putting in the work or do not possess the necessary aptitude.

 

That would be great, but most people don't leave Community College because it's too hard. They leave because of life events. So now not only have they not gotten an education, they have a loan to pay off for something they didn't get. I don't have a solution to getting people to work hard for something they aren't paying for, but kids drop out all the time and aren't required pay back scholarships, why would they if they leave this kind of set-up? Sounds like a poor tax and very regressive.

I actually have a problem with the current situation in the U.S. The emphasis on everybody going to "college" is ridiculous. Only a certain percentage of people can actually complete a four year and an even lower percentage can complete higher degrees. The result has been a watering down of higher ed. Yes, everyone should have post-secondary ed. Yes, people should be able to change careers, return to school later, etc. But to insist that everyone can and should get a Bachelors or higher is ludicrous.We now have a shortage of skilled trades an a bunch of people with a few semesters of college and a bunch of debt. At least some of those people probably should have been counseled to pursue other areas. But we also have a societal bias against those who work with their hands for a living. 

[Bootsie]

15 minutes ago, scholastica said:

That would be great, but most people don't leave Community College because it's too hard. They leave because of life events. So now not only have they not gotten an education, they have a loan to pay off for something they didn't get. I don't have a solution to getting people to work hard for something they aren't paying for, but kids drop out all the time and aren't required pay back scholarships, why would they if they leave this kind of set-up? Sounds like a poor tax and very regressive.

A scholarship (which is earned in some way) is different than free CC.  In many cases a scholarship is the result of a student showing that they have an aptitude for college work and that they, at least in the past, have shown some diligence in completing school work.  That is not a perfect predictor of college success, but it is at least somewhat of an indicator.  When CCs have to accept anyone with a high school diploma, they have to accept students who are not college ready.  

[Clemsondana]

@Crimson Wife, if it makes  you feel any better, non-majors science is often that easy everywhere.  I usually taught pre-nursing biology at the CC, and it was a rigorous class - our department head was emphatic about students being able to transfer without issue.  They worked with the nearby state U to make sure that there weren't problems.  One semester I taught the non-majors class, and wow....we were given a syllabus to use, and it was very...mellow.  I call it 'Biology Appreciation'.  I've been teaching at our co-op for years, and former students come back and visit.  Students who have taken non-majors biology have talked about how ridiculously easy it is, even at the state U, while students who have taken pre-nursing or science major biology anywhere said that it was comparable with my class, with additional material - it felt like the logical next step.  

[scholastica]

28 minutes ago, jdahlquist said:

A scholarship (which is earned in some way) is different than free CC.  In many cases a scholarship is the result of a student showing that they have an aptitude for college work and that they, at least in the past, have shown some diligence in completing school work.  That is not a perfect predictor of college success, but it is at least somewhat of an indicator.  When CCs have to accept anyone with a high school diploma, they have to accept students who are not college ready.  

But if you’ve managed to get a diploma from a high school the state accredited, you should be ready for college or a certification program. We all know that’s not true, but that’s a different subject And this is essentially a scholarship for everyone who completes high school.  But forcing people who were underserved to begin with to pay back money they don’t have seems draconian.

[regentrude]

9 minutes ago, scholastica said:

But if you’ve managed to get a diploma from a high school the state accredited, you should be ready for college or a certification program. 

Yes. And if you are ready, you can pass the coursework and get your loan forgiven at the end of the semester.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

No, I disagree that it works that way. In coming from a poor background, people don’t know what they don’t know. Upbringing leaves a mark. Even how nice your teeth and skin look is strongly tied to the wealth or lack of it with which you grew up. Poor people don’t pay for braces; wealthier people do. The linguistic markers one uses provides strong hints to socio-economic level; it is why my mother forbid us from saying “ain’t got no...” though we were poor. 

I remember one time the office manager at a firm where I worked said she had a habit of watching out the window when an interviewee was expected because she wanted to see how their car looked. So, essentially, she was already forming a prejudice about the candidate before they even arrived at the door. 

People only cheer it once you have risen above your upbringing. Fewer people are willing to boost someone up before that upbringing has been overcome. 

It goes both ways, and that's OK.  Yes there are image-conscious people who put more weight into looks than substance.  There are also many people who put more value on substance and will give more weight to a challenge overcome than to a pretty pedigree.

I personally discarded resumes of people who made a big deal out of which private school they went to vs. what they accomplished and planned to accomplish.  It is no accomplishment to have parents who put you in an overpriced school.

So maybe you have not seen this in your recollection, but it happens and I think there is a pretty decent balance for people who are truly qualified for the jobs they are seeking.

[SKL]

9 minutes ago, scholastica said:

But if you’ve managed to get a diploma from a high school the state accredited, you should be ready for college or a certification program. And this is essentially a scholarship for everyone who completes high school. We all know that’s not true, but that’s a whole other subject. But forcing people who were underserved to begin with to pay back money they don’t have seems draconian.

It is more intended to discourage people from biting off more than they can chew.

I assume they are tested to see if they are ready for regular or remedial college work.  If they aren't ready for remedial college classes, then they should probably look into literacy classes (offered by charities outside of work hours).  If that doesn't cut it, they probably need to consider a career that does not require college.

[Crimson Wife]

1 hour ago, Liz CA said:

Yes, there is a qualitative difference in courses that people take that are in their major and those that are just taken to satisfy certain GE requirements. Of course, I don't know which CC your dc attended and what their ranking is but chances are that this class was watered down for non-science majors.

Sort of like the "peanut butter brittle" class for chemistry for liberal arts majors. ?

She's my "I live and breathe humanities and don't want to take any more math or science than is necessary to graduate high school & get my bachelor's" kid. A bit disappointing to me as a human biology minor but she is her own person. I'm not going to make taking truly college-level biology a hill to die on if she can earn a bachelor's without it.

[Bootsie]

22 minutes ago, scholastica said:

But if you’ve managed to get a diploma from a high school the state accredited, you should be ready for college or a certification program. We all know that’s not true, but that’s a different subject And this is essentially a scholarship for everyone who completes high school.  But forcing people who were underserved to begin with to pay back money they don’t have seems draconian.

It is true that not all that received a diploma from a state accredited high school are college ready, but I do not see that it should be that anyone graduating from high schools in the US should be ready for college.  Some students should not go to college (they do not have the aptitude or the interest).  High school should not be about preparing this students for college.

[scholastica]

13 minutes ago, jdahlquist said:

It is true that not all that received a diploma from a state accredited high school are college ready, but I do not see that it should be that anyone graduating from high schools in the US should be ready for college.  Some students should not go to college (they do not have the aptitude or the interest).  High school should not be about preparing this students for college.

I agree. The push for everyone the go to “college” has not been a positive. We should be focused on getting people to the right post-secondary ed for them, not everybody can get or needs a 4 yr degree.

[Crimson Wife]

I've been thinking about this some more, and I do think that allied health associate's degrees that have selective admissions and require applicants to have done well in pre-requisite courses should also be cost-free for low-to-moderate income students. A student who has earned high grades in the pre-reqs in order to win admission into the program has demonstrated the academic preparation and work ethic necessary for success in college. I don't think there is a major risk of wasting taxpayer money if we make them eligible.

For example, the dental hygiene associate's at the CC where my daughter goes requires passing 3 biology pre-reqs, 2 chemistry pre-reqs, college algebra (or higher), UC-transferable Freshman English, nutrition, psychology, sociology, and public speaking before starting the 2 years of dental hygiene classes. A student who has done well in the pre-reqs is not likely to be at huge risk of dropping out.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

2 hours ago, Quill said:

No, I disagree that it works that way. In coming from a poor background, people don’t know what they don’t know. Upbringing leaves a mark. Even how nice your teeth and skin look is strongly tied to the wealth or lack of it with which you grew up. Poor people don’t pay for braces; wealthier people do. The linguistic markers one uses provides strong hints to socio-economic level; it is why my mother forbid us from saying “ain’t got no...” though we were poor. 

I remember one time the office manager at a firm where I worked said she had a habit of watching out the window when an interviewee was expected because she wanted to see how their car looked. So, essentially, she was already forming a prejudice about the candidate before they even arrived at the door. 

People only cheer it once you have risen above your upbringing. Fewer people are willing to boost someone up before that upbringing has been overcome. 

 

I'm going to back you up on this, Quill.

We are from working class, leveled up to low middle, our kids are first generation college students. 

We have ZERO time for snobs who don't like that we live in the poorest township in the city, or that mom drives a very beat up van, or that dad has a blue collar (skilled labor) career. We are proud of our family. DH is a union electrician who was an electrician and ship's diver on a nuclear submarine in the Navy. That's a point of pride. I drive a beat up van because we chose to use our money for our children's health and education, which I oversee, and there was nothing left over for vehicle image for me. I do NOT care, and I have no use for anyone who would care.

That said, you'd better believe we raised our children according to our working class, farming roots: With decency. Our yard is neat and tended, the house is clean and in reasonable repair, we observe customs like dinner table manners and personal responsibility. None of those are about money or "class." Our boys were taught nice manners, and they know how to pay attention to body language and expectations, when they communicate. Their clothing is not fashionable but they do not stand out as unfashionable, and they have a clean and neat appearance. If the older boys have a job interview or any opportunity, we work it out so they can drive dad's nondescript-but-not-beat-up car. If I'm dropping them off in the van, I wait around the corner and let them walk up to make their own first impression. (They've all worked hard to buy their own decent vehicles by early adulthood.)

This is old school. Poor doesn't mean trashy. My parents and grandparents and great-grandparents were all farmers, skilled labor, and military. This was not a slovenly strata of society in the past, and I will not let our children be held back by letting good traditions fall by the wayside. They are comfortable with working poor neighbors and co-workers as teens, and they can code switch and blend in, when they get to the university. They are appreciated and have easily gained many opportunities because of their combination of challenges and good qualities. 

These are things that can be learned and decided upon, as part of parental responsibility. I think that most of this is within anyone's reach. Keep the house and yard clean, and manage routines for little children. Put your best foot forward, and be confident that your best is enough. Don't look down on anyone, and don't let anyone look down on you. Don't make excuses.

 

 

[Dmmetler]

3 hours ago, regentrude said:

As I suggested, one possibility is a loan that is forgiven if the student applies himself and is successfully passing his classes with a decent GPA. You can flesh it out by giving a grace period of one semester so students who started out floundering can turn their way around.

But I honestly do not see a need for taxpayers to fund tuition for students who are either not putting in the work or do not possess the necessary aptitude.

 

As long as there are free options for remediation, that’s ok-but I can think of quite a few students at DD’s CC who probably wouldn’t have started at all if they felt there was a chance that they might have to pay back the loan if they failed. My BK is one of them. She’s not going to risk debt, after years of hearing that she is not college material. 

 

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, HeighHo said:

 

Do you know what the public school tax is on a middle class home in an hcol state?  I pay several thousand per year in school tax on a starter home, and for that I get just the core courses to earn a diploma, not AP/DE/honors that would actually challenge roughly 50% of students, including mine. 

Are you comparing taxes to club ball fees?  You know taxes are required by law to be paid right?

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, scholastica said:

I agree. The push for everyone the go to “college” has not been a positive. We should be focused on getting people to the right post-secondary ed for them, not everybody can get or needs a 4 yr degree.

I don't think this will happen because people are obsessed with getting 'the best' and making 'the most'.  And we put all kinds of labels on people dependent upon their work. I tell my son to not go looking to make the most money but to figure out how much money he needs to make to live a balanced life.

[Scarlett]

6 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

And you know parents are responsible for the health of their child, right?  

Consider the cost of club vs the cost of private coaching.  Either way, you pay, if you want the child to acheive at that level. Their money, their child, their choice. None of my business.

Health? You have lost me.  We were discussing whether expensive club ball teams were exclusive.

[sassenach]

5 hours ago, Liz CA said:

Sassenach pointed out that I may have been wrong in saying that CA has a fee waiver across the board. I have not had time to thoroughly research this but Sassenach is right in that there are at least 2 categories, evidently labeled A and B. If you qualify for category A, the waiver is not tied to income but residency and you must fulfill one of the conditions of category B. If you fall into another category, your income may be a factor.

Perhaps someone else from CA can clarify this better. I gotta get some work stuff done and only quickly checked into this just now. Sorry for the misinformation in my earlier post. We always seemed to have qualified under category A so we never were asked about income.

 

I found this: 

You meet Method A if any of the following apply to you-

• You received need-based aid (TANF, CalWORKS, SSI or General Assistance payments) in 2015 or 2016 for the 2017-2018 Academic Year or 2016 or 2017 for the 2018-2019. Or for dependent students, your parent received this assistance or their Registered Domestic Partner (RDP) did.

• You have certification from the California Department of Veterans Affairs or the National Guard Adjunct General that you are eligible for a dependent's fee waiver.

• You are a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor or the child of a recipient.

• You are a dependent of a victim of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack.

• You are a dependent of a deceased law enforcement/fire suppression personnel killed in the line of duty. 

Method B is purely income based. I can't easily paste the table, but for a family of 4 the income limit is $36900, which is surprisingly low.