Slashdot Mirror


Obama Proposes 2 Years of Free Community College

An anonymous reader writes with news about a White House proposal that would provide 2 years of free community college for good students."President Barack Obama announced a proposal Thursday to provide two years of free community college tuition to American students who maintain good grades. 'Put simply, what I'd like to do is to see the first two years of community college free for everyone who's willing to work for it,' Obama said in a video filmed Wednesday aboard Air Force One and posted to Facebook. He made the announcement as part of his pre-State of the Union tour and will formally lay out the proposal Friday in a speech in Tennessee. The White House estimated it would save the average community college student $3,800 annually and said it could benefit nine million if fully realized."

38 of 703 comments (clear)

  1. Free? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As in somebody else pays for it...

    But still, it might be ok if the covered courses are useful, and not just "community organizer" type courses. That is to say, something that will train for a marketable skill.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Free? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Education is already tax-subsidized. There's no way most of us could afford it if it weren't.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:Free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most of us can't afford it anyways.. takes 20 years to pay it back.

    3. Re:Free? by mi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But still, it might be ok if the covered courses are useful

      And thus begins the road to ruin. No, it is not Ok to force people at gun-point (which is how taxes are collected) to pay for other people's anything. It worked so well for the public schools, which now cost 4 times more per pupil, than in 1960-ies, we are dizzy with success, aren't we — even if 2/3rd of the nation's 8th graders can't be said to read "proficiently".

      not just "community organizer" type courses

      And that's the other evil of it — not only will taxpayers be forced to pay for it, the actual courses will be decided by our benevolent and omniscient rulers. Do you suppose, it will be possible to avoid taking "Womyn's Studies" or "Climate Change Mitigation"?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rich aren't going to community college.

      I'd rather have an educated society than not. Wouldn't you?

    5. Re:Free? by silfen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Most of us" could afford it much easier if we didn't have to pay the taxes for it and could instead save the money, and if education was a competitive market place instead of the underperforming public-sector-union hellhole that it is.

    6. Re:Free? by 7-Vodka · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I think you mean "There's no way most of us can afford it because it's subsidized"

      Prices are determined by where willingness to pay meets willingness to sell. Subsidies raise the willingness to pay and therefore raise prices.

      In fact I remember from an economics class that this effect has been studied in farm subsidies, I wish I could reference that here but alas it has been a long time.

      Let's not forget that fiat currencies and deficit spending also raise prices.

      --

      Liberty.

    7. Re:Free? by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And GP asserting that a "free" AOL disk isn't free because AOL paid for it isn't pedantic? That definition of free doesn't exist in any closed system. Everything has a cost.

      The much more popular "no cost to the end user" definition of free is obviously the right one.

      It's time more people realized that when the government uses the term "free" it truly is a lie,

      The meaning of "free" from the government is obvious to everyone. Only the mentally ill have a problem with using the common word accurately. "no cost to the user" is always the meaning, and I've never seen "free" used inappropriately with that common definition.

    8. Re:Free? by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't as bad as you think. If it wasn't subsidized the cost would go down -- it would have to. Maybe schools would have fewer administrators, not as nice of buildings, no football field -- big deal. Also, you already pay for it, you just don't see the cost directly. While this certainly doesn't cover the cost, it would help reduce it.

      Not on your life will costs go down if it is subsidized by the government. Costs will go up, way up, for both tuition because the target customers will be able to pay more.

      Want proof of that? Consider what happened when student loans got subsidized by the government... Schools sprang up out of nowhere and build huge facilities to draw in students so they could collect tuition from them. The Students where just spending borrowed money so they didn't care that much about the cost and demand when up, prices went up and the schools started to rake in the dough.

      Problem was that at the time, student loans would not survive bankruptcy so many students just went to school, got out and once they hit their first financial snag would just file for bankruptcy and be done with it. After 10 years the bankruptcy would fall off your credit report. They did away with this loophole because the lenders (and the fed who was backing the loans) was loosing too much money. Now student loans stay with you until you die, no matter what. And now we have people paying their loans off for their whole lives.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:Free? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I want to know is what he means by "work for it". What work will these students have to perform to get this "free" education?

      I presume he's just talking about students working to maintain a minimal GPA. In other words, work as "effort", not work as "employment".

      And yes, of course it will be up to taxpayers to shoulder this additional burden, at a time when the federal deficit is still spiraling out of control. Naturally, that makes it the perfect time to propose expensive new entitlement programs. Precious few people and even fewer politicians care that we're spending ourselves into a real financial mess. There's just too much delicious government gravy to hand out, and no one wants to stop the train.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    10. Re:Free? by thesandtiger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, depending on the advanced degree she goes for, she should be able to get the school to pay her - acting as a teaching assistant or research assistant is usually nets free tuition and a stipend. Not much of one, but still.

      With regard to what people did wrong - they usually listened to their elders who insisted that they HAD to go to college ever since they set foot into 1st grade and filled their heads with visions of gloom and doom, catfood sandwiches and living in cardboard boxes if they didn't go to school. It's no surprise that many young people find it extremely difficult to make sound financial decisions and solid plans for what seems to be a very distant time when they've spent their entire lives being told horror stories about what will happen if they don't do this. I have a very hard time blaming the young people who internalized the endless advice they were given when they act on that advice.

      Part of the solution is to quit overemphasizing college where it isn't necessary. Another part of it is for parents to actually be better parents - sounds like you did fine, but a lot of parents take their kids as an opportunity to compensate for their own failings and push them to the point where the kids behave even more irrationally than the norm.

      Oh, and another part is to put a cap on what an institution that accepts ANY federal money in the form of grants, tax breaks or backed student loans and grants can actually charge for tuition. Tie the cap to the minimum wage, perhaps - something like 50% of the pre-tax earnings from a 20hr/week job at minimum wage per year. If a university can't figure out how to keep the lights on when charging ~4k/student/year JUST for tuition (let 'em charge whatever they want for housing, so long as it isn't required that students live in campus housing), something has gone off the rails.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    11. Re:Free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In >>99% of all cases, a 2-year degree from a community college does not knock off anywhere near 2 years from a 4-year bachelor's degree.

      It only doesn't if the student decides against taking classes that count towards the four year degree. Where I work, we get nearly 90% of our credits accepted by a real college for the students that move on. Of the ones that don't transfer, the vast majority of them are things like pre-Algebra that doesn't have an equivalent at the good school or a vocational class like welding that someone took just for fun. Because the classes here are so easy, the vast majority of our students get more than a two year jump on college since they can take and pass more classes than they would at a real school. The students are far ahead of where they would be without attending a community college.

    12. Re:Free? by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The world needs ditch diggers too.

      Not everyone needs to go to college, If they can't afford it, there are very good living levels to be made by learning a trade. Hell, plumbers around here make more than some GP physicians at the lower levels.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Free? by mc6809e · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is a lie. Why would you pick classes that wouldn't transfer?

      When I taught at Tri-County Tech, nearly all of my student's credits would transfer to real schools. Our classes were stupid easy and you got credit for some very hard college classes. It was a great scam for the students.

      The real scam is that all this free and easy money doesn't go to education. It goes to educators -- educators all too willing to just take all that extra money to provide classes that are "stupid easy".

      The students are just mules that move the money from tax payers to professional educators.

    14. Re:Free? by quenda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you mean "There's no way most of us can afford it because it's subsidized"

      Prices are determined by where willingness to pay meets willingness to sell. Subsidies raise the willingness to pay and therefore raise prices.

      It sounds like you are implying the net cost to the student goes up, which is ridiculous.
      So long as you have elasticity of supply, there is no problem. A small increase in gross fees will lead to expansion of colleges and creation of new ones. This takes time, so new subsidies should be announced ahead, and phased in.
        In fact, free universal education can actually cost society less per student due to economies of scale, without even considering the social and economic benefits derived from it.

      In fact I remember from an economics class that this effect has been studied in farm subsidies,

      I'm not sure you grasped why farm subsidies are a bad idea.

      Let's not forget that fiat currencies

      Oh gawd, not one of those. Economics is hard, I know.

    15. Re:Free? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't need to worry. This proposal has ZERO chance of becoming law. There is no way that a Republican congress is going to run up the debt to fund Obama's pet project. The only reason that Obama is even proposing it is so the Republicans can reject it, and then the Dems can use it against them in 2016.

    16. Re:Free? by tchuladdiass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      :: Why would you pick classes that wouldn't transfer?

      Simple -- you have basically 3 degree options in Community college -- Associates in Arts, Science, and Applied Science. The applied degree consists of classes that generally don't transfer. However, that degree does prepare you for the work place after 2 years (assuming you can find a job that doesn't think of an Associates degree as a failed Bachelors). Whereas the non applied degrees won't give you any job skills, but only prep you for a 4-year college. In any case, it is recommended that a student work with the target 4 year institution, to determine which courses to take at the local community college, and not do it blindly.

      However, this is actually a bigger issue. A lot of the high school classes are dumbed down enough that they really don't prepare students for college level courses. So often times students have to take 1 - 2 semesters of additional prep work classes before they can jump into the real college classes. This can even be true if one took "college prep" classes in high school (depending on how crappy the local school district is).

    17. Re:Free? by WrecklessSandwich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's just the problem, the classes were stupid easy. I had a friend make this mistake going into electrical engineering. All of the STEM people from his community college had their credits transfer just fine, but then they promptly got their asses kicked in their first real-college engineering class because the community college didn't actually prepare them sufficiently. Some went as far as to retake some of their CC courses at the 4-year school because they realized how far behind they were. 5-6 year graduation times all around.

    18. Re:Free? by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the greatest education giveaway in the usa gave rise to the greatest extent of the american middle class in history, and also underlies many of our current racial socioeconomic problems, because it was not fairly allocated

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

      The G.I. Bill was a major factor in the creation of the American middle class, but also substantially increased racial inequality because many of the benefits of the G.I. bill were not granted to soldiers of color.[4] This is because "at the very moment when a wide array of public policies was providing most white Americans with valuable tools to advance their social welfare—insure their old age, get good jobs, acquire economic security, build assets, and gain middle-class status—most black Americans were left behind or left out." [5]

      people who dislike government handouts talk about hard work and meritocracy. but if the poor do not have equal access to education (further exacerbated by plain old racism), then you are creating a class-based, entrenched society where your future success is determined by how rich your parents are or what color they are, not how hard you work

      you can work extremely hard but be poor and not have education, and therefore not advance economically. while some lazy rich lay-about depends upon his class's or his parent's connections and get cushy low effort placeholder job

      that's not a meritocracy

      i am all for people rising or falling depending on the extent of their hard work

      but i also am for everyone starting in at least roughly the same place. which requires education supplementation for those born poor. which means, if you believe in meritocracy, you MUST believe in government education handouts to the poor. or else you have a logically inconsistent, contradictory, and incomplete ideology

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    19. Re:Free? by biek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But why should I have to pay even MORE in taxes to send someone to college. I may need that money to send my OWN kids to school.

      Your kids wouldn't qualify as that "someone" being sent to college on the public dime?

    20. Re:Free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Rich aren't going to community college.

      I'd rather have an educated society than not. Wouldn't you?

      Absolutely. It sickens and disgusts me that so many Slashdot readers are down on this proposal and immediately moaning about "free" services are actually covered by the taxes all of us pay. Well no shit you fucking scumbags.

      If it comes down to pissing away money, I'd rather do that and educate our own population than start more bullshit wars in the Middle East or hand Wall Street money to cover their fuckups.

    21. Re:Free? by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      is being a good hardworking but poor student doing nothing? then a free higher education is not a handout either

      you say a free college education is rightful payment for serving in wwii, and i agree. but it was just another new crazy liberal progressive "socialist" "handout" idea from roosevelt's time, like social security

      the gi bill can be defined as deserved or undeserved, depending upon how heartless or thoughtful you are

      http://www.neh.gov/humanities/...

      As the G.I. Bill made its way through the House and Senate committees, the unemployment assistance, education, and training provisions came under fire. Republicans worried the bill would lead to further expansion of the federal government. Much of the rhetoric echoed the debates over how to respond to the Great Depression, as members questioned whether these programs would encourage or discourage veterans from finding jobs. Colmery, who was no fan of the New Deal, bristled at the suggestion that veterans would turn into shiftless workers upon their return. The bill placed time limits on the benefits to prevent it from becoming an open-ended program like Social Security, the cornerstone of the New Deal.

      On March 24, the Senate passed the G.I. Bill unanimously, but the House continued to debate the unemployment and education provisions for another two months. Rankin, chair of the House veterans committee, had evolved into one of its sharpest critics. An unrepentant segregationist, he worried that African-American veterans would use the benefits to avoid work and live off the government. Rankin also didn’t see the need to give African Americans the same benefits as whites.

      By late April, Atherton publicly called out Rankin for delaying the bill. “If Mr. Rankin means that he wants to deny unemployment insurance to the men now carrying a bayonet for Uncle Sam, the veterans of the American Legion intend to fight him right down the line and to take the issue to every voter in the country.” When Rankin continued with his antics, the other members of the committee banded together to defy their chairman and move the bill forward. After a stormy debate, the House passed its version of the G.I. Bill on May 18. Unemployment insurance had survived, but veterans would only be eligible for twenty-six weeks, as opposed to fifty-two weeks under the Senate version.

      think about how you see the gi bill as not an entitlement for freeloaders, but a deserved payment for service, which i agree with. but now think about how some conservative assholes and trolls today think things like funding basic education and basic healthcare are entitlements for undeserved freeloaders. now think about how such ignorant opposition to progress today will be viewed in the future, like you and i read past opposition the gi bill today

      everyone deserves a good education. or we do not really live in a meritocracy

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    22. Re:Free? by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this case it is. It is an investment that pays of more than it costs. It in fact better than free, especially since borrowing money right now is free for the government.

  2. YES. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Correct. Society must remove the middleman "money" as a barrier to entry, and instead ask only for performance. First with education, but in the end with everything. The best work, after all, is done by people achieving for its own sake - choosing anyone else is a compromise, and with over 7 billion people in the world, we can afford not to compromise.

  3. When everyone has a 2 year degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    then no one will. Or rather, the 2 year degree will be worth nothing.

    This is just covering the complete failure of the highschool system, and an attempt to buy votes.

    We need fewer people in college not more. In many places by 16 you have the 'trade school' kids and the 'college kids'. Hint: craftsmen aren't just guys with a Home Depot credit card, it's hard work and takes time.

    1. Re:When everyone has a 2 year degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I understand worth means different things to different people, but a 2 year degree will be worth nothing only if you place absolutely no value in knowledge.

    2. Re:When everyone has a 2 year degree by gatkinso · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The poster is correct. However what the poster would be missing is the value of a mentor to guide his self research, and the collaboration of his fellow students.

      Walk into a library and get a degree in (pick a subject). How do you know WHAT to read? Are you going to miss something fundamental in your studies? How would you know if you did?

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  4. Four Years for Associates. by asasdlfgnjl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now it will be four years for associates, and six for bachelors.

  5. Free? Where is the money coming from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this programs saves its average participant potentially $3,800 annually it seems to do so by having someone else pick up the tab. And Community Colleges like most Colleges in this country are a joke. Just like most High Schools are.

    The average College Freshmen in this country reads at a Seventh Grade Level. And now we are going to lower standards even more at Community Colleges so that EVERYONE can at least get a C+ and these schools get more taxpayer money shoveled into them. Let's lower standards even more and have the working class get raped for more money.

  6. great news for corporations and politicians by silfen · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's two years out of the workforce, two years of not paying into retirement, and no benefit, since those students will simply be competing against each other for the same jobs anyway.

    And why is he doing it? Not because it helps students, but because it appears to lower youth unemployment and reduces the need for corporations to train people themselves slightly.

    It's a gigantic ripoff, both of students and tax payers.

    1. Re:great news for corporations and politicians by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And why is he doing it? Not because it helps students, but because it appears to lower youth unemployment and reduces the need for corporations to train people themselves slightly.

      How is giving every kid with good grades the opportunity to get more than a high school education without having finaces be an overriding consideration?

      Of course it helps the students. The best thing in the world to improve the odds for success in life is more education.

      And the first 2 years of college/university are worlds apart from what you learned in grade 12.

      but because it appears to lower youth unemployment and reduces the need for corporations to train people themselves slightly.

      Fascinating world view you have there.

      That's two years out of the workforce, two years of not paying into retirement, and no benefit, since those students will simply be competing against each other for the same jobs anyway.

      Good point. We should end public education at grade 4. Its just years they aren't in the work force, and of no benefit since they'll just be competing each other for the same jobs anyway; and all it does is reduce the need for corporations to train people themselves.

      I mean, everyone does work for a corporation right? There aren't ~20 million sole-proprieterships in the country. And there certainly aren't another 40 million+ people working for small to medium businesses.

      It's a gigantic ripoff, both of students and tax payers.

      Seriously. Sarcasm off. More available education is one of the best things we can do for the country. This isn't no-child-left-behind sillyness... this is about making sure students who can and would succeed at post-secondary school get to go.

      What would be a better use of tax dollars in the long run?

  7. Wow... by jopsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As usual, it's poor people providing subsidies for the rich.

    Rich people pay more in taxes... If not, maybe you should address that... But let it be a separate issue.

    I'm constantly surprised at how Americans manage to see the bad in every government service provided. In most other modern countries services such as this is what enables poor people to climb. It's the thing that reduces negative social heritage (you have a lot of that in the US)..

    Note, just because a government makes it easier to climb out of poverty does not make it trivial. I've never been poor, but because tuition and living expenses was covered for me during university, doesn't mean I didn't have to work hard to earn a degree.

  8. Let's do the math by ichabod801 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    $3,800 x 9 million students x 2 years = $68.4 billion dollars. Perhaps not a lot when you consider the full federal budget, but it's more than we spent on the entire Department of Education last year. The real numbers that matter are 54% and 57%, the Republican portion of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

  9. Re:Nope by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That isn't the case in other countries with free college education (i.e. most of Europe).

  10. Re:"free" education costs too much by quenda · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just about every developed country provides free pre-school. But its not a blank cheque to private businesses.
    Why doesn't your state run its own preschools? Here they are attached to primary (elementary) schools. Maybe not the same location, but sharing staff, admin etc.

  11. Re:"free" education costs too much by jma05 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You pretty much hit the nail on its head. When most governments take socialist action, it is because of socialist motives (people demanded it). When US takes socialist action, it is because of capitalist motives (businesses lobbied for it). So cost controls, either through regulation or via competition with the public options (in US, public option often ends up being publicly-funded option, rather than publicly-run option) are quickly ruled out as infeasible or unfair for privates. Then everybody nods their heads on how government is not the solution.

    This is not to say that a bit of this does not happen in other countries, but seems to be especially problematic in US.

  12. Do you have a degree from a public school? by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In fact, do you have a degree from ANY university in America? If so, then you were on the public dole. It is simply a matter of how much support you had. I 'put myself' through school back in 79-83. Of course, rent, tuition, fees, etc were well within the minimum wage amount. And after the first year of living in Colorado, I was given in-state tuition where 95% of the costs was paid by the state. IOW, that I 'put myself' through school was still subsidized.

    So, get over yourself.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  13. Re:"free" education costs too much by jma05 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Adam Smith's capitalism isn't what is in charge today. Why talk about some idealized version of capitalism that never was, beyond small town bakers that Adam Smith observed (you are not the only one who has read some economics). The world moved on. Its better to read Piketty than Smith to keep up with the times.

    BTW, it makes it a lot easier to cuss and complain when you are anonymous, doesn't it. Does it feel good?