Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is, indeed, the hard part given how deep we've gotten into this mess.
I would start by cutting all non-research public funding to colleges. Productive colleges will survive off of tuition, donations, and grants. Many colleges will realize that they aren't productive enough to support themselves and will fail. Here we have the weeding out of lower quality institutions.
To fill the void, we need more schools that are for job training and trades. How we get there... is the question.
Maybe you've had an extraordinary experience at your CC. In my experience, I've never seen a CC focus on academia. They've always seemed like an extension of high school where classes are weighted heavily and research and publishing is not.
The whole point of community colleges is that they are supposed to be focused on teaching, not research. It is not fair to criticize community colleges for focusing on what they were designed to do, rather than focusing on something they were never intended to be good at.
Plus, we are talking about the first two years of Higher Ed. That is when undergrads focus on learning the basics, not on research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
This is, indeed, the hard part given how deep we've gotten into this mess.
I would start by cutting all non-research public funding to colleges. Productive colleges will survive off of tuition, donations, and grants. Many colleges will realize that they aren't productive enough to support themselves and will fail. Here we have the weeding out of lower quality institutions.
Ok. So you have now shut down approximately 1000 community colleges, and a similar number of state 4 year schools. After eliminating 80% of all institutions of higher ed, what do you think the remaining propivate schools will do? Perhaps they might increase tuition because their application rates have jumped by about 1000%?
Where will we get the next generation of teachers, engineers, doctors, writers, nurses, computer scientists, statisticians, morticians, ultra-sound technicians, web developers, lawyers, businessmen, dietitians, accountants.....
The whole point of community colleges is that they are supposed to be focused on teaching, not research. It is not fair to criticize community colleges for focusing on what they were designed to do, rather than focusing on something they were never intended to be good at.
Plus, we are talking about the first two years of Higher Ed. That is when undergrads focus on learning the basics, not on research.
An undergrad at a traditional school is very heavily involved in research. They aren't conducting their own research, but they are working side-by-side with PhD students and professors on research... and typically take on administrative tasks in relation to the research such as grant proposals. That's what an institution of higher academia does.
We've diluted higher education with this extension of "high school" crap. There's nothing wrong with studying the arts and sciences in a classroom. But it's not a college education. And these students aren't all of a sudden prepared for higher standing at an institution of higher academia.
Community colleges are a relatively new thing and they have their ups and downs. Being so new, they haven't really been put up against the test of time. They serve as great job training facilities. But do not contribute to academia and thus should not be considered a college.
Ok. So you have now shut down approximately 1000 community colleges, and a similar number of state 4 year schools. After eliminating 80% of all institutions of higher ed, what do you think the remaining propivate schools will do? Perhaps they might increase tuition because their application rates have jumped by about 1000%?
Where will we get the next generation of teachers, engineers, doctors, writers, nurses, computer scientists, statisticians, morticians, ultra-sound technicians, web developers, lawyers, businessmen, dietitians, accountants.....
We were just fine before community colleges and government funded diploma mills... for much longer. People were going to college just fine before they arrived. We didn't have this dilemma we are in now.
You do realize that nurses, morticians, ultra-sound technicians and web developers are jobs requiring training. Not a college education. These are not academic fields.
First, tuition was not always free in California... and it was not free for all universities.
Second, you're missing the point completely. When college tuition became artificially affordable (post WW2), everyone and their mother started attending college. It kept increasing until now. The quality of education became over-diluted to accommodate all these students. The result is what we have today. A large number of degree holders without a solid college education. The value of a degree is much less than it used to be (hence, inflation).
Cheap college, does not produce better educated people. All it does is produce more people with a piece of paper.
Speaking of undereducated, Reagan was not doing much of anything in CA in the 80s.
If the quality of college education became diluted, where did all those engineers and physicists come from?
Let's try to remember one thing here:
Our middle class only began its growth after World War II, when millions of GIs went to college on the GI bill. People who never would have had a dream of attending college before this were suddenly able to get a higher education. If it were not for the GI bill offering all that free college for everyone who wanted to attend, we would not today be mourning the death of the middle class, because we would never have had it.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the middle class started its downfall around the same time that a college education started going up and up and up? How many people today can enjoy the lifestyle their parents had? And how many of those parents were able to take advantage of the education they got on the GI bill?
And as for education being diluted, the answer is simple. Set a standard for performance in whatever degree is offered, and stick to it. College is not high school (which is 9/10ths of the problem). College should not have to teach basic English and math, among other things. If students can pass a college entrance exam (a REAL entrance exam), only then should they be allowed to attend. What's better, anyway? College educations for students who are rich enough to afford it, but just party and drink their way through, or motivated students who are willing and able to give their schooling the respect it deserves, but would only be able to go if it were free? Which student would you rather teach and which student do you think deserves the education?
The biggest mistake with community colleges was calling them "colleges". That translated into the ridiculousness we have today where attending a community college equates to the first year or two of a traditional college. Complete nonsense.
Maybe you went to the wrong community college. When I went to check out UC Santa Cruz, I was informed by them that my 4 year degree would only be 2 years, because my first 2 years had already been done at the community college. I consider UC Santa Cruz a pretty good university and I would think they would know what they were talking about, don't you?
Explain to me why you think college bound kids, and adults, should pay thousands of dollars more because you don't think the community colleges have any value?
Our middle class only began its growth after World War II, when millions of GIs went to college on the GI bill. People who never would have had a dream of attending college before this were suddenly able to get a higher education. If it were not for the GI bill offering all that free college for everyone who wanted to attend, we would not today be mourning the death of the middle class, because we would never have had it.
I know several UAW members without a college degree who are middle class and make more money than many college degree holders.
I know several UAW members without a college degree who are middle class and make more money than many college degree holders.
Almost certainly true at the micro level, but at the macro level the number of high-paying industrial jobs has declined.
For the UAW in particular, they had 1.5 million members under their umbrella in 1979 - that number has declined by about 75% even as the overall US workforce has grown. They currently represent about 0.2% of the US workforce.
So as a factual statement, what you say is certainly correct. But it's not a prescription for broader success.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
