I went to a public high school in upstate NY, and a big chunk of my graduating class ended up in the local community college (coincidentally, where my mom was a librarian). Such a big chunk, in fact, that the college was jokingly referred to as “Troy High, 13th grade.” That being said, it was a school that combined the unfortunate need for remediation (of bad attitudes as well as insufficient skills) with some areas of genuine excellence. Math and physics were particularly strong, and often fed students into Rensselaer, a major engineering university. It was a great way for good but cash-strapped students to get two years of college on the cheap, and for “non-traditional” students to make a transition into better careers. More or less, it’s a place that knows its mission.
The common criticism of Massachusetts’ community colleges is that they don’t seem to know what they’re supposed to be doing. Roxbury Community College, for instance, graduates only 5% of its incoming students. Slice it however you want, but that can’t possibly be good. I don’t even think that it’s the colleges’ fault — there’s something wrong with the students going in if they can’t hack the work, or if they’re distracted or unmotivated to finish. Again, it’s the old public school problem of having the student feel that the goal of education is relevant and meaningful.
So I don’t know … I’m not sure that making community colleges free changes the equation that much — how is this not just 13th and 14th grades? What are we supposed to get out of it, exactly? More voc-ed? Feeding students into the state universities — or private colleges, for that matter? Remediation for ineffective primary schooling?
We should be clear on what we want, before we just ask for more of it for free.
<
p>
You’ll make a good conservative someday.
I should probably know more about this than I do, but I have a possibly useful anecdote that might help explain RCC’s low graduation rate. One of my roles is to advise students transferring into UMass Amherst’s computer science program. Lots of our students are from Massachusetts community colleges, particular STCC, which has a two-year program specifically geared toward us. But I’ve also seen students (I particularly remember some Vietnamese students from Bunker Hill CC) who had used the college to get a few specific credentials they needed in order to get admitted to UMass. In the case of these folks at least, the CC had done a useful job for them and gotten them into the higher ed system successfully, but from the point of view of graduation rates they were scored as failures.
<
p>
We see hardly any transfer applicants from RCC in the fields I work with — I don’t think they have much of a CS program. So I have no idea how many of those 95% RCC non-graduates are actually success stories.
<
p>
I’m encouraged by Gov. Patrick’s proposal — I’m not sure the optimal tuition rate for a CC is zero, but it’s much lower than it is now and zero is easy to understand. The CC’s are the prime source of non-affluent students here at UMass Amherst, again from my anecdotal observation.
But the grad rates track to other measures of success, according to the MassInc. article I linked to above.
…the American education system is truly screwed up–less vocational and apprenticeship training that in, for example Germany–but, regarding
<
p>
The common criticism of Massachusetts’ community colleges is that they don’t seem to know what they’re supposed to be doing. Roxbury Community College, for instance, graduates only 5% of its incoming students. Slice it however you want, but that can’t possibly be good.
<
p>
That is a terrible percentage, but it is not clear what it means. When I was at University (Ohio State) in the late 1960s, they would admit as a freshman anyone who had graduated from an Ohio high school. The incoming freshman class was huge. The graduating class was not. Why not? I sincerely don’t know the exact reason, but it is likely that more than a few of those who dropped out believed that they could do better with vocational training and apprenticeships, that with academic training.
<
p>
BTW, I am fully in favor of government support for higher education. Whether or not that means totally cost-free to the students is another issue. One of the reasons that German health care is relatively afordable is that MD students’ residence at Uni is subsidized by the state, so they don’t have a debt the equivalent of a house to pay off once they graduate.
… I often saw a college was that many students didn’t understand the ‘break’ in their continuum of learning that the transition from HS to University meant. They seemed to be on autopilot and many learned a life lesson the hard way in thier freshman year as a result. I wonder if this could exacerbate this problem. To mitigate it I would probably add a 1 year service requirement before CC to qualify for free tuition. My professors often said that their best students seem to have been the ones who spend some time out of school before coming to thier classes.
<
p>
With regard to “What are we supposed to get out of it, exactly?”,… CCs still have degree programs, dont they?
As a kid, we often drove through Troy en route to Vermont. We always stopped to watch the operations at the lock and dam.
… actually, they’re in Waterford. Still cool, though.
To a little kid, the ships being raised and lowered seemed HUGE. I always wanted to wait for one to come through. Dad, being an engineer, was always inclined to let me.
…the locks on the Rhein River, somewhere around Strassbourg. Quite interesting.
<
p>
You might have been interested in observing the Whitewater Canal in Metamora, Indiana. Actually, that was where two canals crossed one another–the one canal being confined in an overpass over the other.
It is funny that you mention this, as locks are something I seek out wherever I am. I did see some near Berlin– I believe they must connect to the Elbe– on a lightning This-is-Tuesday-must-be-Versailles two week spint through Western Europe, taken a few years ago. A pity there wasn’t more time. There seemed to be good ones around Dijon, FR, as well.
<
p>
I’ve seen photographs of Metamora, but haven’t been there.
…a “tempo tour.”
<
p>
I can’t tell which German river you are referring to. The Elbe seems to be near Berlin, but the river that flows through Berlin is the Spree.
<
p>
The palace at Versailles (France, not Indiana) is amazing. We went on a tour of it in 1985. One thing that I found amusing was that the tour guide mentioned that Louis XIV’s treasury was in the Hall of Mirror. The chandaliers were gold, and, when they needed money, they would pull one down and use it to coin money.
My mental map of Germany, and my memory, are hazy, and the tempo of the tour was certainly that of Carl lewis in the 100m dash.
…appears to be a tributary of the Elbe. The Elbe flows through Hamburg. We’ve never been to Hamburg, but we’d love to go there someday.
Why should a Massachusetts taxpayer be forced, at gunpoint, to pay anyone’s college tuition bill? At what point does a person become fiscally responsible for the decisions he or she makes in his or her life? While it’s good to be clear on what we want before we just ask for more of it for free, perhaps we should also ask if the government even has the power to compel a private citizen to pay the bills of another private citizen. For if the government has the power to compel the taxpayer to pick up the tab for this sort of privilege, where do you draw the line?
<
p>
…I would presume that you would also object to requiring taxpayers support public schools at any grade level.
. . . would be incorrect. Massachusetts’ long-standing history and tradition of providing a “free” (i.e., taxpayer or community-funded) basic education to each and every citizen, which we exported to the rest of the nation, is one of the many things that makes our nation successful. I’m merely questioning whether it is right, i.e., a proper use of government power, to force taxpayers to continue paying for a student’s education after that student has already received approximately thirteen years of taxpayer-funded education, has received a high school diploma, and has, in fact, reached an age at which most people become emancipated from their parents and “strike out on their own.” Education is a wonderful thing, and I’m not arguing against it, or the need for it. I’m merely asking why the government should have the power to point a gun to my head and force me to pay for someone’s college education. Before we ask if the government should do this, shouldn’t we ask if the government has the power to do this? Why do we presume it does?
…Massachusetts state colleges and universities referred to their undergraduate programs as grades 13-16. Why the arbitrary state cut off of substantial support at grade 12?
And adulthood seems like a reasonable spot, especially if we want people to take responsibility for themselves.
…everytime I looked at a college kid today and said, “Now there goes a responsible young adult!” simply because the state didn’t pay for his education.
<
p>
More often than not, college tuition is financed either by overburdened baby-boomers now caring for their parents AND their kids, or some form of student loans which now eat up about 25% of a post-grad’s income once they hit repayment.
<
p>
This has less to do with responsibility than it does about how we think of education to begin with. The privilege of the wealthy, or something available to everyone to better themselves, adn then the world around them?
<
p>
Put another way: Is anyone in Massachusetts better off when someone DOESN’T go to college? I don’t think so.
<
p>
Average graduate of UMASS owes $14,553. Amortize that over, say, 5 years at 8% (the term is actually longer, and the rate actually lower) and you have $295 per month. If true that the $295 per month was in fact 25% of the graduate’s income, that would mean the average graduate earns, $14,160.
<
p>
If the average graduate earns $14,160 per year over the 5 year term following graduation then either i) the education, on average didn’t pay off, or ii) your statement is wrong. Given that the average individual earnings in Mass are around $44K, I tend to think the latter.
<
p>
<
p>
I’m pretty much fed up with hearing about the greatest
whininggeneration. The boomers are about to inherit wealth that exceeds any wealth transfer from generation to generation in the history of the world. Overburdened? Not financially.<
p>
<
p>
I strongly disagree. The plumber installing a well pump for me today, has a family, nice home, nice lifestyle, kid graduated from Umass last week and (most telling) a billing rate that’s about equal to my own. College isn’t for everyone, but you can bet that if it’s free near everyone will give it a try.
Thanks for the stats. But speaking for myself, and for friends I have, student loans are a tremendous burden. Average income in Massachusetts doesn’t come close to telling the story of most people in their 20s, earning less than $30K, and having to make it in Massachusetts these days. After paying for rent, student loans, and now health insurance, the lower middle class is struggling.
<
p>
There are worse things in the world than someone “giving college a try.”
<
p>
And by the way – Who’s inheriting wealth? Maybe your friends in the top ten percentile, and their buddies at the country club. Certainly not the people who will feel the need to attend a community college because its free.
I can’t argue with stories, but the facts don’t lie: average UMass graduate debt is $14K, personal median income for a household is $46,947 compared to the national average of $42,148. In 2001, the median income for a family of four was $80,247 compared to the national average of $63,278.
<
p>
You probably heard the expression in law school: bad facts make bad law. Well, bad anecdotes make bad legislation.
<
p>
And who’s inheriting wealth? Here’s a balanced view from the Christian Science Monitor.
<
p>
And, not that it’s anyone’s business, but I travel in modest circles, eventually footed the bill for my graduate degrees, and thanked my school teacher folks for eventually paying my undergrad (‘course, things were cheaper back then). Certainly my golf swing doesn’t derive from the local pro.
I can’t argue with stories, but the facts don’t lie: average UMass graduate debt is $14K, personal median income for a household is $46,947 compared to the national average of $42,148. In 2001, the median income for a family of four was $80,247 compared to the national average of $63,278.
<
p>
Unless you can isolate for age your statistics are meaningless. It is likely that most people who are repaying loans are in their 20s and perhaps early 30s, although for some professions–such as physicians, it may be older. It is–or at least was–fairly well known that peoples’ peak earning years is when they are in their 50s.
<
p>
And who’s inheriting wealth?
<
p>
You continually confuse inherited wealth with current ability to pay. That’s nonsense.
The stats I reference support the notion that Mass residents can in fact, support the cost of college. Maybe they’re not complete to your satisfaction, but it beats the stats that anyone in the thread has thrown out to the contrary.
…to isolate variables of interest. Your statistics are meaningless because they do not account for age, profession (after leaving University) or a myriad of other variables. Once you have learned to do regression, and have reported the statistics to us, I’ll sit up and listen. Until then, know.
<
p>
Some of us really do know what it means to “lie with statistics.”
-Ed says we need free Community College. Kids are graduating paying 25% of their earnings in student loans.
<
p>
-I point out that the average loan is $15K and, if Ed’s claim were true, it implies that the average kid is earning $15K per year for the 5 years following graduation. I’m skeptical and indicate so with stats that show Mass residents in general earn 3 times $15K.
<
p>
-You claim my stats are meaningless.
<
p>
Newsflash: the original claim is 100% unsupported.
<
p>
Try this:
<
p>
Gary: The moon is made of cheese.
<
p>
Ed: Well, Apollo brought back to Earth, some moon material and it was rocks
<
p>
You: Ed your claim is meaningless. The astronauts didn’t go to all places on the moon. Call me when you study geology, and astronomy and statistics and….
I know people pay over 20% (yes, in a few cases 25%) of their take home on student loans in the years following college (and, in a few cases grad school).
<
p>
I take it you don’t know those people. That comes as a shock to no one.
…and there’s always a but. You make a couple of silly points, too. Example
<
p>
The boomers are about to inherit wealth that exceeds any wealth transfer from generation to generation in the history of the world. Overburdened? Not financially.
<
p>
Um, unless it has escaped your notice, one does not inherit one’s parents wealth until the last of those parents dies. Given that the parents of most boomers are living longer, it is highly unlikely that most boomers will inherit much of anything until they are well into their 50s, long past the time that they would have had to have paid off their student loans. As far as I can tell, most parents from the “greatest generation” are not exactly generous with giving their offspring their wealth, so the offspring will have to wait until the parents die to collect. So, yes, the boomers are supporting not only their parents–via social security taxes and working to support company pension obligations–but also their children, certainly via at property taxes, which primarily go to fund public schools.
<
p>
As an aside, if a parent from the “greatest generation” years has the temerity to refuse to die and founder in a hospital before he or she is eligible for Medicare, most families will be wiped out. My spouse’s widowed mother was faced with that possibility when her husband–then in his 50s, and hence uneligible for Medicare–was in hospital. Fortunately for her (she hated him) he had the good sense of dying before it became an issue.
<
p>
Regarding your plumber, when I was growing up in a suburb of Cincinnati in the mid-1960s, most of the neigborhood comprised professionals (i.e. college graduates). Three houses down lived a plumber. For a reason I could not understand, and to this day still do not, much of the neighborhood shunned him. A plumber? Living in a middle-class neighborhood of mostly professionals? One can live fairly well without television, radio and accountants. But living without sanitary indoor plumbing? No.
You presume that college is the only pathway to success, and I assume you mean economic success at that. This presumption, of course, is incorrect, as even today it is possible to achieve a good deal of economic success without attending college. And your presumption re-enforces the “ticket punching” notion of college today, to wit: “To get a good job, all I have to do is go to college.” Talk about a set-up for unrealistic expectations.
That wasn’t my point. I’m presuming that an education is one tool that will help someone along the road from lower class to middle class. Even Gary would agree that there are statistics that support the fact that over time, someone with a college degree earns more than someone without.
<
p>
Is it a panacea? No. You will still have to work VERY hard after college to make it. Can you make it without a degree? Absolutely.
<
p>
But the question still is: Why should someone who WANTS an education be denied one because they can’t afford it? Why should an education be the privilege of the wealthy?
<
p>
Why should someone who WANTS a house be denied one because they can’t afford it? Why should a house be the privilege of the wealthy?
I beg to differ—the question never was the one you posed; the question was does the government, or should the government, have the power to steal from taxpayers in order to provide a certain type of student a free education at a Massachusetts community college.
<
p>
Education is hardly a privilege of the wealthy; to suggest that it is is both hyperbolic and disingenuous. Everyone can attend a public school from kindergarten to 12th grade at the taxpayer’s expense—economic class is irrelevant. And there are all sorts of scholarships and financing programs available to qualified students who could not attend college because they lack the money to do so. Further, many who can’t afford college earn the money to do so by serving in this nation’s armed forces first.
<
p>
How is it equitable that the Massachusetts taxpayer should be forced, at gunpoint, to pick up the tab for the post-high school education of one type of individual, and not another? Why stop at making community colleges free? What about the high school graduate who wants to become an electrician, or a plumber, or a barber? Why not make those schools or training programs free as well?
<
p>
Let’s get down to brass tacks: this proposal is not about educating a certain group of students as much as it is about propping up an educational infrastructure—Massachusetts community colleges—that serve a dubious purpose, and could very well go the way of the dinosaur if the free market had its way. Because if the government, through this idea, can ensure a steady flow of pupils through these schools, guess what? There will always be room for more hacks. That’s all this proposal is about—protecting the hacks.
<
p>
The altruism is just the sugar that makes the pill more palatable . . .
Here again, we’re coming up on 50 posts and there is little more arguing to be done on this topic. And, hereagain, we’ve reached the classic impasse over how people view government. This quote says it all:
<
p>
<
p>
Neither you nor Gary really believe in the concept of taxation for betterment of the whole of a community, much less taxation enabling a free college education. I don’t think anyone here will change your mind.
<
p>
But my comment about education being a privilege for the wealthy is neither disingenuous or hyperbolic. To suggest that it is just shows how divorced you are from the concerns of people of low to moderate income. Tuition at state colleges nationally is nearly 50% higher than it was a decade ago. Meanwhile, wages have been relatively stagnant. The simple fact is the high cost of education produces shortages in professionals that society needs, like teachers and nurses. I applaud the solution proposed by the governor.
Whether you’re to the left or right of higher taxes as a means to cure society’s ills isn’t my point. My point is specific and is with regards to this statement:
<
p>
<
p>
Now if you can show me a source that substantiates that “loans … eat up about 25% of a post-grad’s income once they hit repayment” or that the baby-boomers are financially overburdened, then your statement has merit and possibly justifies government action. I’m sure there’s a guy with big loans relative to his earning and that there are money-stressed boomers. But, in general your statements are broad, and IMHO incorrect generalizations. And, if you can’t substantiate the statement, how do you believe it yourself?
I know people going through it. My loans are killer. But then, I went to law school. Entirely my fault, I realize…
You assume too much; I most certainly believe in the concept of taxation for the betterment of the whole of a community. That, in fact, is the only justification for taxation. Suggesting that there is a limit to what taxes can be used for is hardly suggesting that taxation should not exist.
<
p>
Your comment about education being a privilege for the wealthy was an attempt to distract from the crucial argument of this post—and you continue to try to do so by reiterating it here. And again, you presume too much about me in doing so, in order to win points for your argument. I submit you know nothing about me; certainly nothing that would enable you to draw the generalization that I am “divorced . . . from the concerns of people of low to moderate income.”
<
p>
It’s wonderful that you applaud the governor’s solution to this non-existent problem, but if you feel so strongly about the issue, why would you involve government at all? Why not use your own funds to endow the school of your choice, or set up a scholarship program for economically-disadvantaged students? I submit that it’s much easier to spend other people’s money than it is to spend your own, and therein is where the danger lies . . .
…as far as I can tell, the American k-12 educational system is terribly broken. It is geared towards “college prep” and does little for those who are not destined to go to college (note that I did not write “college material,” in large part because I would consider that derogatory).
<
p>
The German educational system is not perfect, but it recognizes that not everyone needs a college degree. It has been criticized as channeling people into different tracks (Gymnasium for college prep, Realschule for vocational traiing, and Lehrlinge–apprenticeships–for on the job training*) at too young an age, but at least it recognizes that not everyone is going to go to University, and not everyone needs to go to University to function.
<
p>
Regarding *, apprenticeships in Germany are similar to Northeastern’s apprenticeship program: part classroom education and part on-the-job training, but at the high school level. It is not denigrated, and, indeed, I read that one of the chief executives of Deutsche Bank had been a Lehrling.
Because when one reaches the 12th grade, one is typically at emancipation age—i.e., he or she becomes an adult. And just as when one becomes an adult, one may exercise his or her rights freely, when one becomes an adult, he or she must accept responsibility for himself or herself. And this includes the sort of accountability that would come from a decision to extend one’s education by going to college.
Because when one reaches the 12th grade, one is typically at emancipation age—i.e., he or she becomes an adult.
<
p>
Aside from the fact that I entered University at 17 (below your usual “emancipation age”), people have “rights” usually accorded adults at different ages and in different states. Typically, people have the right to drop out of school at 16, the right to marry earlier than 18 (even earlier with parents’ permission), and typically cannot legally purchase or consume alcohol until they are 21. Their signatures on contracts are valid at 18, but their signatures on military enlistment papers may be valid at 17.
<
p>
So what, precisely, is your point?
. . . is that one must be expected to take responsibility for one’s self when one graduates from high school and (a) joins the work force, or (b) continues one’s education; and that it is not the proper function of government to steal property from the Massachusetts taxpayer in order to send people to college for free.
<
p>
You had asked “why stop at grade 12” with public education, and my reply was my answer to that question.
…what you said before. But you did not provide a reason why it is a proper function of government to steal property from the Massachusetts taxpayer in order to send people to high school, middle school, grade school, or even kindergarten for free. If it is a proper function of government to steal property from the Massachusetts taxpayer for any purpose, why not to allow people to attend college?
Forgive me; I thought that was obvious. I can think of at least two obvious reasons:
<
p>
1. Historical precedence. A taxpayer- or community-funded basic education has been available for Commonwealth citizens since Bradford and Winthrop came ashore.
<
p>
2. It is in the best interest of the body politic that the majority of its citizens be able to read, write, perform arithmetic, etc.—i.e., be provided a basic education—in order to participate, at a basic level, at minimum, in civic life.
<
p>
Beyond the high school level, education transforms from basic to specialized, and is therefore no longer basic; one studies, in college, what one hopes to do in one’s professional life.
As to your point one, I recognize arguing from tradition, but, although I find tradition interesting, like Tevye (Fiddler On The Roof) I recognize that tradition is not the be-all and end-all. It is one datum to be taken into account when coming to a determination as to what is the correct policy, theory (scientific or otherwise), etc.
<
p>
As to you point two, when I was in K-12, the K was unnecssary, and the subjects that you mention, as well as others (some semblance of science, history, civics, maybe even foreign language–which should be started at a young age) can be handled in 1-6, or I’ll maybe concede 8. Not high school. By high school, it appears (or appeared to me in the 1960s) that most students were “tracked,” i.e., your “specialized.” College prep, advanced placement, some semblence of vocational ed, secretarial, whatever, but it was obviously specialization.
<
p>
Further, it strikes me that your Beyond the high school level, education transforms from basic to specialized… is a bit misplaced. So what? Does society not benefit from people who have (more) specialized knowledge in certain fields than others? It is highly doubtful that you would be using your computer today were it not for the fact of such specialization. Or be able to take advantage of advanced medical techniques. Or…need I really go on?
<
p>
BTW, it was the GI Bill following WWII heavily subsidizing college tuition for returning veterans that gave the US the huge advantage in educated citizenry that it enjoys today.
college graduates more than make up for the public’s financial contribution to their college degree, that’s why.
<
p>
From a purely financial consideration, the state is better off by funding the college ed. Those students pay far more in taxes, are far less likely to go to jail or otherwise have significant problems with the law, are far more likely to have stable home environments, etc.
<
p>
This is in aggregate, but the point remains: more college educated folks means a stronger, safer, and more productive environment for everyone.
<
p>
It’s a good investment for the community.
What you’re advocating is a form of economic blackmail. Why should government have the power to confiscate my money from me in order to invest it elsewhere? What about the inequity caused by increasing taxes to pay for this sort of economic blackmail? Essentially, you’re sticking up the middle class in order to give someone else an economic benefit. What gives that someone else more rights than the person you’re sticking up?
There is a great need for productive community colleges today. If only to prepare young people with essential business skills, the community colleges could serve a great purpose. The sad part is that of all the teachers at these schools I’ve ever met not one had any interest in the students. Most will tell you who they know and who they are related to, how may state payrolls they are on, and how few classes they need to do to “get through” the year.
<
p>
I’m sure there are some dedicated professionals out there. When I see young people failing in the business world, I wish that these kids could have some background training that would enable them to be the clerks, medical technicians, entrepreneurs, salespeople that make the world go round.
I’ve run into a lot of dedicated professionals — they may not have the chops to be working at a research-1 university, but they’ve been doing the job for their students. I’ve seen CC programs that are underresourced and disorganized — the latter problem is one that UMass can and does help with. (For example, there is a program, originally funded by a grant won by UMass Amherst, that among other things facilitates communication between IT and CS programs at all the state schools, and funds course development. The CC faculty taking advantage of this are not looking to avoid work.
<
p>
This comment is really unfair. To paint hundreds of faculty across the Commonwealth with one broad brush of disdain is really a disservice to those who choose to teach at a Community College. There people like this, you know, and I know many. They are quite clear on the mission of the community college and are dedicated to their students.
<
p>
I can assure you that your experience is simply that, your experience. The mileage of others will vary.
I went to High School down Rt 4 from you, and we always thought of Happy Valley as 13th Grade. Ah, memories…
The shortage of skilled workers in the various biogen industries, high tech, etc. is estimated to be growing, and enormous. One thing the community colleges do and do well is train for these skilled, but not “professorial” positions.
How are they doing at that?
There are both certificates and two year degrees that feed direction into work in the fields related to the firms that create pharmaceuticals and so forth. A good example is Middlesex Community College, with campuses in Lowell and Bedford. See http://www.middlesex…
<
p>
Take a look at their “business and industry brochure” – It doesn’t seem to have a separate URL for this information – there is a separate dean of workforce development and they really pride themselves on their placement and employment support. I am told that more than 85% of MCC graduates remain in Massachusetts as employees.