I agree with you about the skills however everyone needs an education. An education is how people make good life decisions. A lack of education costs all of us much more than a couple grand for community college. That's what's unfortunate about people that oppose things like this proposal. They look at the costs of the programs without even acknowledging the costs of not having the program. How an uneducated, unskilled work force affects an economy and society in general. Those costs are never discussed.
One big shocker I learned from Germany is that all students pay little to nothing in tuition costs for an undergrad and post grad degree. Want a doctorate in Computer Science and you're smart enough for it? Free. Just pay for room and board on your own. Here, people are complaining about community college of all things being free... I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. There's so many things inherently disputable about the Forbes article OP posted (which seemed like the most thought out counter argument in this thread..). The main thing is that the writer is arguing from a cost benefit zero sum standpoint (with "the budget" in mind) despite the obvious lack of acknowledgement that education is consistently a factor in a person's and economy's long term success. Sure your typical dumbass kid could spend 5 years at a Community College, but he won't be penniless in student debt while getting there. Does it solve the problem of unfit students? It never was intended to do so. It's just a platform where, say you've been outsourced or automated out of your cushy desk job and you can't post Republican/Fox theology on Clutchfans anymore, now you have to bust your ass to reinvent yourself. Well those first two years will determine whether you have the talent and effort to raise your game for the next final two years at a uni. I just don't get some people. We should have more venues for reinvention and second chances. The administration also thought out requirements to maintain so it isn't like the students are just wasting resources. Yet in this thread people are rigidly trained to like or hate something based off of the same old culture wars bull**** instead of reflecting on whether it's a big risk and whether it's really a big fish to fry in terms of time and resources...
Your simple minded opinion doesn't hold water. You just expect people to walk up to a hospital and say, "I'd like to be a nurses assistant, can i start by cleaning toilets?" Community colleges give students inside tracks to jobs. They have career connections, internship programs. Most teachers are still working in the fields they teach so they know what students need to get jobs.
People now a days are greedy. They'd rather have an extra $1 in their pocket than help their fellow man succeed. it's a culture of me first Ayn Rand bull****.
Let's raise the tuition so that it covers one hundred percent of the total cost including the construction and costs of all infrastructure. This would get the gubmint off our backs and reduce taxes leading to an explosive supply side growth so we will all be rich. Such higher tuition will also create more moral fiber in those students who actually struggle to get the money to pay all the loans back. Signed A typical libertarian/conservative
I'm one of the people hating on community college. I don't think you have to go to a good university to make a good living. It does help you make good connections, but that's another discussion. I graduated from UT in 2003. I tried to go to school to acquire a skill and that was a massive failure. I burned out from petroleum engineering after 2 years, so I switched to history and French. I switched from French to government minor I think in my last semester. I switched to history so I could learn to read, write, and critically think a little bit better. I graduated with a degree that has almost no value in the workforce and I'm glad I did. I'm way better off now than I would have been if I stuck with engineering. Maybe I am coming around on the community college thing the more I think about it. Maybe this will allow people to take some courses without the worry of it costing them money. Maybe that will allow them to take courses that don't have direct application into the workplace like liberal arts related courses. Maybe I'm in the minority when I think people shouldn't just go to school to only learn a skill.....enough rant....I'm going to get coffee. And career colleges/for profit schools do suck....
I am very much for it, and will provide a couple of reasons. My father was a high school graduate in the late 1930's, parked with his best friend's family because my grandfather couldn't make a home for him or my aunt. Grandpa was divorced and busy hanging on to a job with a railroad as a station agent in small towns, being moved around to wherever the railroad thought they needed him. So Dad and my aunt lived in Houston. My aunt with a relative, Dad with the friend I mentioned. Dad graduated at the top of his high school class, but had no hope of going to college. Then Pearl Harbor happened, he enlisted in the Navy, and the Navy decided that since making crystal radio sets was a hobby of his, and he was smart, they'd turn him into a radar expert. With the end of the war, the Federal government, spending our tax dollars, paid for Dad to go to college on the GI Bill. He ended up being a department chairman at a major Houston college for over 30 years, getting the job in his 30's. Yeah, I'm proud of my late father. That was one reason. Another? Both my kids went to the magnet high school here in Austin, one graduating a year and a half ago from a major university out of state with degrees in computer engineering and computer science. He's currently working here for an astonishing amount of money, considering that he's 23 years old. My other kid is a college freshman at a university outside of Austin, but in the State of Texas, a very highly rated university. Why did I bring that up? Because both went to Austin Community College during the summer. Not because we suggested it. It was their idea. Austin has a deal with ACC that lets high school students go that college free of charge. Yes, that is indirectly paid for from our local tax dollars. Too complicated to explain here. My point? My older kid walked onto his out of state campus for the first time with 42 credit hours already under his belt, some of them earned at ACC taking courses during the summer that he didn't want to take at the university. Stuff like government, for example. Our other kid started school this fall with about 30 hours. That has (and will) save us a hell of a lot of money, with an earlier start on their careers. Some of you keep trying to make stuff like this into a simplistic argument. "We're being raped by the government because of high taxes!!" Ignoring the fact that income taxes are at or near historic lows. You should have seen the income tax rates during the economic boom during the '50's and '60's. Look them up. If you don't already know, your jaw will drop. Keep ignoring the benefits we get out of having government programs that actually help people. Folks like me will continue to take advantage of them.
Well it's not really "free", but nothing in life is. You can get "free" college if you served in the military. I did.
Good point. And neither of which involves "free" anything from the government. People pass up opportunities to educate themselves, and living a healthy life is as easy as good diet and good exercise. It's not rocket science.
Public education is free and there is a significant component of public health that is free. If by free you mean the government of course. Education and health care should be "free". For profit education and health care is a disaster in this country.
Not everyone needs a college degree. Worker ants make the world better. If this system goes main stream, it will start hurting the tier 2-3 colleges. It will also start making jobs harder to find for many people as there competition increased. Best career to get in to though: Sales.
Not sure. There are many theories behind it. Studies have shown that the younger generations just aren't as interested in law as previous generations, so that could be a huge reason. Again, it also depends on the type of specialization. Obviously the most common types like personal injury or criminal defense are going to be more saturated. Trust me, it wasn't an easy decision to make and I knew the statistics going in, so it was going to be tough no matter who you are. It mostly boils down to connections and specialty. There is also a sizable amount of non-law practicing JD's. I don't recall the percentage, but I think it was about 30%. The majority of which go into business or the government. I'm not sure if that's in your definition of "doing things," but it's more than just your typical courtroom attorney.
I agree to an extent, but this new system will start pushing importance of where you graduated from. It is basically "inflating the dollar"! I did graduate from UofH but am in Sales! Making way more money than I would have with a degree. How awesome it is!
Community colleges would not even be needed if corporate entities sponsored select young children who demonstrated talents for different fields. In other words, engineering companies could seek out children with math and science aptitudes, and sports teams could sponsor kids with athletic skills, and so on. If a child demonstrated a different goal, he or she could drop out of one sponsorship and glide into another. Sponsors could upgrade or downgrade their evaluations (which would keep the kids motivated to retain their sponsorships) or add older children as they demonstrate blooming talent. Why should athletes be the only ones to be "groomed" from junior high to college entry? If a child demonstrates a love for tinkering or metals or building things, let those types of companies be the sponsors. Education in general would be better served. Companies would get the kind of employees they want ... and no child would be left behind.
