FIVE Reasons why FREE Community College is a Terrible Idea

[jamil]

The problem of debating any point with the INGO wolf-pack is that they cover everything from generalizations to ratione extrema.

I find no value here in arguing with those who can't see the broader picture.

I'm going to go watch "Billions".

That's yet another false dichotomy. So we should agree with you or we don't see the broader picture? What if we do see a broader picture, but because of a different world view, the broader pictures are different. I am not astonished that a person who has a collectivist mentality wouldn't see the broader picture from an individualist's perspective.

 

[Alpo]

I don't find them as much more compelling as less disingenuous. I'm not classifying Alpo this way because I see him as more of a moderate than a progressive.

Probably correct. Moderate to conservative on most social justice issues. More Keynesian on economics.

 

[Alpo]

That's yet another false dichotomy. So we should agree with you or we don't see the broader picture? What if we do see a broader picture, but because of a different world view, the broader pictures are different. I am not astonished that a person who has a collectivist mentality wouldn't see the broader picture from an individualist's perspective.

Not a hive-minder. Probably more of a lone wolf. I would think the group grope that you guys are doing is more "collective" or bromancy.

 

[BugI02]

That's wonderful. If you have a chance to save up the 60 grand for Princeton each year, by all means do so. Some very bright students who potentially could change the world can't afford that.

But, I suppose they could be looked down upon for not working for it. Always a good way to make sure Nobel Prize winners don't get too uppity.

Since we are talking Nobel laureates, following is a partial list of top producers of same. Non-US and non college entries have been coded red. Ivy League schools in green. Princeton is ninth on that list, below six non-Ivys. Only five Ivys make the top sixteen. I'd be saving that $60k and sending my kid to UC-Berkely or Stanford or UT or WashU. Ivy League has always been overrated

Institution	Chemistry	Economic Sciences	Peace	Physics	Physiology or Medicine	Total
University of California	13	7	N/A	10	5	35
Harvard University	6	4	1	9	12	32
Max-Planck-Institut	10	N/A	N/A	4	5	19
University of Chicago	1	10	N/A	5	1	17
Stanford University	4	2	N/A	9	2	17
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)	2	3	N/A	7	5	17
Columbia University	2	4	1	6	4	17
California Institute of Technology (Caltech)	4	N/A	1	7	5	17
University of Cambridge	3	3	N/A	7	3	16
Rockefeller University	6	N/A	N/A	N/A	10	16
University of Oxford	5	1	N/A	1	5	12
Princeton University	N/A	4	N/A	6	1	11
MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology	6	N/A	N/A	N/A	2	8
Cornell University	3	N/A	N/A	4	1	8
University of Heidelberg	4	N/A	N/A	2	1	7
Sorbonne University	2	N/A	1	3	1	7
Bell Laboratories	N/A	N/A	N/A	7	N/A	7
London University	1	N/A	N/A	2	4	7
Berlin University	5	N/A	N/A	2	N/A	7
Yale University	3	2	N/A	N/A	1	6
University of Texas	2	N/A	N/A	N/A	4	6
University College	1	N/A	N/A	1	4	6
P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute	N/A	N/A	N/A	6	N/A	6
Institut Pasteur	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	6	6
Uppsala University	2	N/A	N/A	2	1	5
Karolinska Institutet	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	5	5
Goettingen University	3	N/A	N/A	1	1	5
Washington University	N/A	1	N/A	N/A	3	4
University of Zurich	2	N/A	N/A	N/A	2	4
University of Illinois	N/A	N/A	N/A	3	1	4
University of Colorado	1	N/A	N/A	3	N/A	4
CERN	N/A	N/A	N/A	4	N/A	4
National Institutes of Health	1	N/A	N/A	N/A	3	4
Munich University	3	N/A	N/A	1	N/A	4
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine	1	N/A	N/A	N/A	3	4
Imperial College	2	N/A	N/A	2	N/A	4
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory	N/A	N/A	N/A	4	N/A	4
Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology)	4	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	4

 

[Alpo]

Depends on their major and interest within that particular discipline. Harvard is $60 K. Stanford is $45 and UC-Berkeley is around $40. And then there's graduate school........

You boys gettin out of the tub or are you going to jaw all day?

 

[jamil]

Not a hive-minder. Probably more of a lone wolf. I would think the group grope that you guys are doing is more "collective" or bromancy.

Collectivism isn't necessarily "hive-minder" and individualism isn't necessarily "lone wolf".

Rather than the sophomoric attempt at dispatching opinions you don't agree with you should consider the reality that you've stumbled upon a forum where people with your political opinions are fairly rare.

INGO has a lot of conservative/libertarian leaning folks here who were raised with principles of personal responsibility, making our own way, not becoming a burden on others. You shouldn't be astonished that such people would not share your favor of free tuition. But you continually insult people who disagree with you as if it those principles are far inferior to yours. I don't mind a spirited or pointed conversation. But disagreeing with you doesn't make us worthy of those insults.

 

[Alpo]

Thanks Professor. I'll stick with Gilligan.

You ought to review your own posts for possible demeaning language.

I happen to hold a minority opinion on this site on political topics. I can live with that just as I can live with your views. In the end, they don't really matter....it's just the internet....but we can possibly learn a little from each other on occasion.

What strikes me, however, is that your side brooks no criticism whatsoever. It is your way or no way. I presume that's because the GROUP is comprised of self-motivated, home-schooled ardent Randian philosophers who have never accepted help from their fellow man.

LOL

 

[trucker777]

The GI Bill isn't "given" to someone free for just breathing/existing.
They worked for it.

How about making military service compulsory, then providing these young Marxists with a class on America 101, Freedom 101, and Patriotism 101? No revisionist crap either. Just my two cents.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You have every right to disagree. Doing so with comments about the other people posting, rather than the points being made, is what makes a post trollish.

I just completed, in December, my second Associate of Science degree. My program was very focused, demanding certain classes be completed. I had a choice of a couple of sciences (microbiology, chemistry, advanced physiology, pick two.) and I had a choice of any of several "success electives" required by Ivy Tech. In my first degree, in 2006, I had some similar choices as well, but all of the classes except the "success electives" were, to turn a phrase, mission-oriented. They may make a student better rounded (I CLEPped out of "Creative Writing" and Sociology by proving my knowledge of both, rather than sit through classes I didn't need) but they also delay one's completion of a program and line the pockets of the school with more classes a student doesn't need to do the job they're training to do.

If I want to learn about Art History, or Early Childhood Education, or Welding, I can take those classes. I don't need to be "more social", with classes taken for the sake of sociability. While I was in school, I had scholorships that helped pay my way, but I earned them by scholastic aptitude and performance, they weren't given to me "just because" and they were from a private fund established by individuals with the school. I graduated my first degree with a 4.0. My cumulative now is a 3.45, after my second. Both of those were completed while a full-time employee, the latter while a full-time student as well.

I believe you to be in error regarding homeschooling as well. As many parents who do it say, you make the sacrifices you have to to meet the needs you consider important. Incidentally, as one poster said upthread, it's not who provides the instruction, but who defines the curriculum that is important, as well as who supervises that instruction. If I, as a parent of a public school or even a private school kid, disagree with something they teach, I have no say in that being taught. My role is to be the financier and the unwillingly-silent partner. In a homeschool setup, I and perhaps 8 or 9 other sets of parents might choose to hire a teacher, sit down and hammer out a curriculum with which we all agree, and we supervise our own children's progress. If our employee, the teacher, doesn't meet our expectations, we can modify what s/he is to teach or how s/he is to teach it. Another alternative is one that one of my medics does with his kids: His wife is a nurse practitioner. He works full time as a medic for one service and part time for the service for which I was, until changing jobs to my new profession, his supervisor. At his full time job, he works seven nights in a row, and for me, he'd pick up a 24 hr day each week. In the summer, he farms as well. Their six children do quite well. I believe he told me that they and several other parents work together for the common goal of their children's education. So, and this part is guesswork, I have to admit, one day they might be at the Abercrombie house, the next at the Baker house, a third at his and his wife's, and on the fourth evening, they could go to the Donaldson house. Maybe the Abercrombies teach language arts. Mrs. Baker, who grew up in Mexico, might teach Spanish, while Mr. Baker teaches history. Either this man or his wife could easily teach Health, possibly Math. Along the way, each parent teaches their own children other things, like Home Ec, how to balance a checkbook, and/or Natural Science. It doesn't involve taking time out of productivity at one's full-time job, at least not as a necessity.
Teaching this way is not free. Simply put, though, if it's important to you, you find a way. If it's not, you find an excuse. (those are non-specific "you"s.)
If childrearing is primarily "wimminz wurk" (not your phrase but encompassing the idea you promoted), I submit that the problem is not with a patriarchal society, but in THAT home. Both parents need to be involved, if both are present. Should my medic, whose wife is an NP, make her stay home and miss on her income, because raising their children is "her job"? I should add that I know their family to be quite respectful of tradition and their children to be quite respectful. Of everyone. They are well-reared, by BOTH their parents.

On the subject of college and it being offered for "free", I should state another truism: When people don't pay, or pay very little for something, they place no, or very little value on it. I can use myself as the example. Fresh out of high school, I got accepted to Texas Tech, in Lubbock TX. Classes were $4/semester hour. In addition, I was not there because I wanted to be, I was there because it was expected that when one finished high school in my family, he or she enrolled in and graduated from college. Needless to say, I did not do well and left college as part of a mutual decision. I placed no value on the classes. I see no reason to believe that the majority of those receiving "free" college would behave differently. [STRIKE]My classes at Ivy Tech were over $300/hr.[/STRIKE] (ETA: No they weren't. They were over $300/class, not hour. I regret the error. BoR) As Actaeon said, those guys who put men on the moon and brought them home, probably paid for their college educations, or had (earned) scholorships, paid for by private funds.

So sure, if you want to devalue education more than the MSM already does, and lower your own worth in the process; after all, if everyone can get a college education with minimal effort and no real "skin in the game", your degree(s?) for which you had to work don't mean as much, absolutely- open the floodgates and extort money from the people to fund the scheme. You could even contort Trump's slogan: Take America's Greatness Away, or possibly, A- meh- rica

Just know that doing so will place you with those for whom the rest of us hold naught but contempt for those actions.

Blessings,
Bill

BOR: The thread is an indictment of the collegiate system and in particular free community college. I disagree. While I think "cultural studies" is largely a waste of time and money except for those who have an anthropologic bent, I do think that some of the other majors mentioned by Actaeon (professional nanny, pop culture, gunsmithing, fermentation sciences, Canadian studies, decision making, bakery science and management, costume technology, Entertainment Engineering & Design, and Turfgrass science) could provide measurable value to society at large. There are trades (and therefore economic impact) associated with them in the real world. In addition, electives are generally thought to be a good aspect of an education to "round out" the student. So, while art history might not be "useful" to a software coder, it might help make that person more social.

As to home schooling, I'm sure it can be successful in a microcosm. On a macro level, it is entirely disruptive to the economy. A parent is pulled out of their otherwise busy work cycle to provide instruction to each individual child, thereby lowering their economic impact. It also assumes that 30 parents home schooling is better than one teacher. I'd argue that observation as specious. In any group of 30, I doubt that all of them have the intellect, patience and discipline to educate their children. If you know better, please cite your sources. And to those commenters who cite the "exception" of male/gay home schooling to the general way things get done in our society, the task of child-rearing is still primarily a responsibility of the mother. Arguing exceptions ad infinitum isn't helpful.

Ultimately, it isn't difficult to see that the level of education of future generations would suffer, the economy would be disrupted by the refocus of adult time toward child-rearing, particularly the female parent, vectoring society once again toward a patriarchy.

So, if I sound trollish, it's because the idea (and commentary support) that the education system provided to all is a bad use of our resources is unsound for a variety of reasons.

Yes, we put a man on the moon, before a number of "soft" degrees were offered by colleges and universities. But, the guys who put those men on the moon had college degrees, not home schooling. Take any space program or CERN, etc. Degrees. You don't make the first resume cut without an education. It's been that way since I started working in the 70's.

And underneath the success of some very famous companies run by "dropouts" is an organization staffed mostly with engineers and scientists...with degrees. So I say again, I would rather fund the development of the next generation of artists, vinologists, chefs, engineers and mathemeticians than leave spent uranium projectiles littering southeast Asia.

 

[Twangbanger]

Since we are talking Nobel laureates, following is a partial list of top producers of same. Non-US and non college entries have been coded red. Ivy League schools in green. Princeton is ninth on that list, below six non-Ivys. Only five Ivys make the top sixteen. I'd be saving that $60k and sending my kid to UC-Berkely or Stanford or UT or WashU. Ivy League has always been overrated...

The heck with Nobel Laureates; their immediate impact on average people's lives is pretty minimal, anyway. Let's really put this idea to the "Big Picture" test: as Alpo points out, we don't need to theorize about this subject. We already have a working laboratory where this idea has been tried and applied, right here in America, for decades.

Is Big-Picture life better in California than in the rest of the U.S., from the standpoint of the "average" person? Do average Californians have more to show than the rest of us, for the incredible expenditure of public resources which has been made on the California (Education) Dream?

It seems like they should have. If you're a Cal State employee with a Pension, I'm sure you can see it. But what about everybody else?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Anybody care to give me the cliffs?
I don't think community college is all that bad an idea, but how about identifying individuals in HS, and funneling them (while still students) into programs which they could automatically integrate into the private sector, after graduating.
Hold open houses, during school hours, and let employers give their pitches.

 

[longbarrel]

You know, since paying for college isn't in the Constitution, which is supposed to be the rules the Feds are limited to.

Roe vs. Wade? In the constitution Right to practice Sharia Law? Also, in the constitution under 1st amendment establishment clause. Executive power? It is being debated and mulled around weekly. So, if you expect them to adhere to one, they should be expected to adhere to all.

 

[actaeon277]

Not a hive-minder. Probably more of a lone wolf. I would think the group grope that you guys are doing is more "collective" or bromancy.

Not a hive minder.
More of a lone wolf.


That wants the collective to spend its money the way you want it spent.

 

[actaeon277]

Roe vs. Wade? In the constitution Right to practice Sharia Law? Also, in the constitution under 1st amendment establishment clause. Executive power? It is being debated and mulled around weekly. So, if you expect them to adhere to one, they should be expected to adhere to all.

Do we wish to expand the conversation to those areas. You might be surprised.

 

[Twangbanger]

Roe vs. Wade? In the constitution Right to practice Sharia Law? Also, in the constitution under 1st amendment establishment clause. Executive power? It is being debated and mulled around weekly. So, if you expect them to adhere to one, they should be expected to adhere to all.

Since Hillary purports to be a fan of Free College - I've no doubt John Roberts is already twisting brain cells, trying to find a way to make it Constitutional.

 

[Woobie]

Since Hillary purports to be a fan of Free College - I've no doubt John Roberts is already twisting brain cells, trying to find a way to make it Constitutional.

The John Roberts test for constitutionality is that a bill has to be passed into law by elected representatives. As long as Hillary can get it through congress, she's home free.

 

[Alpo]

I understand the concept of "going it alone" and standing on your own hind legs very well. Like some/many of you, I could not depend upon my family for support after high school. Would I have accepted help had it been available? Most certainly. Past a certain point, self-sacrifice isn't very beneficial to the development of the individual.

I think we are talking about a couple of spectrums here, from Selflessness to Selfishness. From Self-Starter to "I don't do very well on my own". From Bright to Not So Bright. From Ideal Parent to These People Should Not Breed.

While individual cases or small group idealism is an interesting exercise and generally proves that almost any combination of factors can be combined to achieve an "ideal" (to you) set of conditions, that doesn't work, generally, for the 300 million people in America overall, or the 7 billion people world wide. I know that some of you have managed large group behavior, and it is in that context that I think most of us recognize that we can't always control outcomes, even in almost ideal circumstances.

I don't remember who said it, but it is something I remember from a seminar somewhere: The challenge is to get extraordinary results out of ordinary people. Granted, in the companies I've worked in and with over the years, their "ordinary" is at least a standard deviation above the 'ordinary' to start with.

All this is to reiterate that I have no objection to home schooling or great parenting. But most people are not capable of effectively doing so. Not in this generation. Perhaps not ever. And while genetics plays some part in children rising to their full potential, I believe for the great majority of parents, we have a better chance at helping a child achieve their potential in a school system rather than the random ministrations of their parents. I'll give you your "exception", as long as you recognize it as exceptional.

I'm in my late 60's and though I've carved my path along this time line pretty much on my own (along with my wife), I have had emotional, spiritual and financial (banking) support along the way. I think I have enough humility to recognize that I'm no better than anyone else, and I am grateful to others for the assistance they've provided me over the years.

All that is playing in the background when I say that an education post secondary school is almost mandatory now for the careers most desired in this post-industrial society. We should also recognize that the generation responsible for rearing children today have not left a better world to our heirs. Take your pick: housing, general cost of living, sense of community, illegal drugs, terrorism.

Is it so much to ask that we direct some of our resources toward those who have to climb over the barriers that we have built in their way? I know you say that YOU do not value anything given to you. (I think you overstate your case. I'm sure of that....none of you walk past the free food handed out in Sam's Club for godsakes). That is not true in general and it certainly is not true of anyone who is in need. People require assistance from time to time. I would hope we could help the next generation get started without a tremendous debt burden. We can talk about who is responsible for that and why...but that doesn't help an 18 or 19 year old kid, because all we are doing is talking. Nothing is getting done.

 

[jamil]

I understand the concept of "going it alone" and standing on your own hind legs very well. Like some/many of you, I could not depend upon my family for support after high school. Would I have accepted help had it been available? Most certainly. Past a certain point, self-sacrifice isn't very beneficial to the development of the individual.

I think we are talking about a couple of spectrums here, from Selflessness to Selfishness. From Self-Starter to "I don't do very well on my own". From Bright to Not So Bright. From Ideal Parent to These People Should Not Breed.

While individual cases or small group idealism is an interesting exercise and generally proves that almost any combination of factors can be combined to achieve an "ideal" (to you) set of conditions, that doesn't work, generally, for the 300 million people in America overall, or the 7 billion people world wide. I know that some of you have managed large group behavior, and it is in that context that I think most of us recognize that we can't always control outcomes, even in almost ideal circumstances.

I don't remember who said it, but it is something I remember from a seminar somewhere: The challenge is to get extraordinary results out of ordinary people. Granted, in the companies I've worked in and with over the years, their "ordinary" is at least a standard deviation above the 'ordinary' to start with.

All this is to reiterate that I have no objection to home schooling or great parenting. But most people are not capable of effectively doing so. Not in this generation. Perhaps not ever. And while genetics plays some part in children rising to their full potential, I believe for the great majority of parents, we have a better chance at helping a child achieve their potential in a school system rather than the random ministrations of their parents. I'll give you your "exception", as long as you recognize it as exceptional.

I'm in my late 60's and though I've carved my path along this time line pretty much on my own (along with my wife), I have had emotional, spiritual and financial (banking) support along the way. I think I have enough humility to recognize that I'm no better than anyone else, and I am grateful to others for the assistance they've provided me over the years.

All that is playing in the background when I say that an education post secondary school is almost mandatory now for the careers most desired in this post-industrial society. We should also recognize that the generation responsible for rearing children today have not left a better world to our heirs. Take your pick: housing, general cost of living, sense of community, illegal drugs, terrorism.

Is it so much to ask that we direct some of our resources toward those who have to climb over the barriers that we have built in their way? I know you say that YOU do not value anything given to you. (I think you overstate your case. I'm sure of that....none of you walk past the free food handed out in Sam's Club for godsakes). That is not true in general and it certainly is not true of anyone who is in need. People require assistance from time to time. I would hope we could help the next generation get started without a tremendous debt burden. We can talk about who is responsible for that and why...but that doesn't help an 18 or 19 year old kid, because all we are doing is talking. Nothing is getting done.

No. It's not too much to ask at all. My parents also instilled in me to be a giver and not a taker. That means that taking personal responsibility includes helping people who need help. No matter the depth of one's resources there is usually a way to give something to those who need help even if it is only your time. So, by all means, do give of the resources you can spare to help those who have to climb over the barriers that we have built in their way.

As I've said before there is a collective interest in having an educated society. But the collective interest isn't served by simply making everything that benefits society free. There is no such thing as free. Someone's still paying for it.

So let's talk about those barriers we've built. They were built by collective supposed solutions to individual problems. College is unaffordable for much the same reason that healthcare is unaffordable. There is no market pressure to reduce tuition other than the ability to people to qualify for student loans. The cost of tuition between a certain range is an arbitrary number where the limits are at the low end, the real cost to the institution, and at the high end, the ability to qualify for a loan. It doesn't reflect the value of education. It reflects the maximum $$ that institutions can extract from the public. The more people they can get qualified for student loans, the more money they can extract.

As far as Bernie's plan to "fix" education, we're talking about shifting our personal responsibility to help those who need help to other people. To me that is immoral and it won't fix education anyway. To fix education we should remove government from it to the extent possible. I'm not talking about ending the tradition of public colleges and universities. That's just not a practical goal we can achieve as it is an entrenched part of the system. But we can get the government out of finance. And we can stop telling people they must go to college when vocational training is also a viable career path. And we can close down the silly "...studies" curriculum. That would die on its own if tax payers were allowed to stop funding that nonsense.

What I'm saying is let the market work to force the tuition costs down to the level people can afford. And then, to help the unfortunate kids who still can't afford the training they need to be givers instead of takers, you and I can help them.

 

[JollyMon]

Not everyone should go to a college. But people have to understand that after High School you have to go and get vocational or trade training that is useful. You can be very successful and very wealthy without going to college, but you still need a skill. That type of training is very affordable and isnt a high wall to climb to a motivated individual.

We are becoming a country that expects handouts and instant gratification, But the desire to work for it is diminishing. In my opinion, there is no way to legislate our way out of it, the only way that we can is by making people responsible for their actions. Which the only way we can do that is by removing the government from mitigating the risk. Do some people need help paying for college. Yes, but requiring a service for it should be expected (ie the GI Bill). If you have a strong desire to get a college education, a stint in the service is a small price for a lifetime of education. Plus after you get out you have something great to put on your resume to show leadership and responsibility.... plus it looks better then that part time job at Quiznos.

 

[eldirector]

Here is a short list I have compiled of ways to pay for college, or attend at a reduced rate, without taking out a loan:

1. Apply for scholarships and grants (billions of dollars are already given away each year)
2. Save your summer job money
3. Apply for work-study jobs on campus
4. Take college credit courses in High School
5. Get good grades (leads to scholarships)
6. Score well on the SAT/ACT (more scholarships)
7. Be active in your church/community (more scholarships)
8. Play sports (more scholarships)
9. Complete the FAFSA (ignore the loans, look for grants)
10. Enter a Community College for all basic courses, and transfer to a University to complete your degree
11. Enter the military and take your GI benefit
12. Attend a State school, rather than Private (cheaper rates)
13. Attend school in-state (cheaper rates)
14. Commute (live at home rather than on campus)
15. Take a full load all summer and graduate early (same tuition expense, but enter the workforce faster)
16. Alternatively, work part-time and attend college part-time (takes longer, but pay as you go)
17. Earn an Associates, then take an adjunct faculty position at the college. Complete your Bachelor's degree at a reduced rate.

In short - the government is helping more than enough already.