“College for all” has become a curse, writes linguist John McWhorter in the New York Daily News. Young people are told the only way to a middle class life is a four-year degree, but vocational training also can lead to the American Dream, he writes.
There is nothing ignoble about finishing high school, spending a year learning how to fix heaters and air conditioners and going off to ply a trade and make a good living (i.e.. the one we know plumbers make when we pay their fees).
. . . Did the guy who installed your cable-TV service have a college degree? How many sound technicians, mechanics or building inspectors spent four years on a college campus? How about the person who did your ultrasound?
Complaining of a maze of federally funded job training programs, House Republicans have introduced the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills (SKILLS) Act to consolidate 35 federal employment and training programs into a single $6 billion Workforce Investment Fund.
A “more understandable effective and fair” student aid system doesn’t need to cost taxpayers more money, concludes a New America Foundation report, Rebalancing Resources and Incentives in Federal Student Aid. The study was funded by the Gates Foundation’s Reimagining Aid Design and Delivery project.
To eliminate any future “funding cliffs,” Pell Grant funding should be guaranteed, turning it into a true entitlement, the report recommends. In addition, the maximum grant should be increased and year-round funding restored to help students complete degrees more quickly. The “ability to benefit” provision would be restored, opening the door to students who lack a high school diploma or GED.
All this would cost more money, but the report also calls for limiting Pell eligibility to 125 percent of program length to encourage students to move along. In addition, eliminating “the outdated Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program that disproportionately benefits wealthy private institutions” would save money that could help fund Pell Grants.
The report proposes a Pell bonus for community colleges with a graduation and transfer rate of at least 50 percent. “Eligible schools could either use the additional money to reduce the net price they charge their neediest students or to create support programs to help low income students earn their degrees and transfer to four-year colleges.”
Other recommendations would redesign student loans and tax credits.
• Significantly simplifying the federal student loan system and reducing the dangers of default by requiring all borrowers to repay their debt based on a percentage of their earnings. Encouraging colleges to hold down their costs by eliminating both the Parent PLUS and Grad PLUS programs that currently allow for unlimited borrowing.
• Eliminating poorly targeted higher education tax benefits, such as the American Opportunity Tax Credit, in favor of direct aid for students.
The report also calls for strengthening accountability by “creating a federal student unit record system to provide a clearer picture of how students fare as they proceed through the educational system and into the workforce.”
Eligibility for federal student loans should be limited to 150 percent of program length to discourage prolonged enrollments, the report proposes.
Borrowers who turn to private student loans should be able to declare bankruptcy, if necessary, to clear their debts.
While the report is “wonderful and thought-provoking,” Community College Dean questions whether students can finish a two-year degree in 2 1/2 years. Very few do. Setting a tight time limit would make it hard to offer “stackable” certificates or integrate developmental instruction in mainstream courses, he adds.
Then there’s the political challenge. Capping student loans and eliminating tuition tax deductions to pay for Pell could alienate middle-class voters, he warns. “Once the middle class decides that a program is really just for the poor, that program tends to wither on the vine.”
Enrolling in community college increase students’ chances of earning a bachelor’s degree, concludes a new study. Jennie E. Brand, a professor of sociology at UCLA, analyzed the choices of Chicago public high school graduates. Most didn’t make it all the way: Only 11 percent completed a bachelor’s degree in six years. But community college helped most students and hurt only the most academically prepared.
But the new study found that for the vast majority of students, the alternative to attending community college is not enrolling at a four-year institution, but not to attend college at all.
There is some undermatching for more academically prepared students, who otherwise would have been likely to attend four-year colleges, according to the research. But that group was small in the study’s Chicago sample.
Community colleges “open doors for some people and close doors for others,” said Sara Goldrick-Rab, a University of Wisconsin sociology professor. For disadvantaged students, community college may be the only realistic option, she said.
The study found that disadvantaged students, who would otherwise not have attended college, are 93 percent more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree if they enroll in a two-year institution. But students who fit the profile for attending a four-year institution and instead enroll in a community college will indeed hurt their odds of earning a bachelor’s degree, according to the study.
Well-prepared middle-class students should think twice about starting at a community college, the study found. They will be more likely to complete a degree if they start at the four-year level.
Few middle-class students start at community colleges, but rising college costs and lingering recession may change that, Brand said
“There is one place I stand in complete agreement with Mr. Romney,” Mr. Obama said. “This election is about our economic future.”
. . . he called the election “the make-or-break moment for America’s middle class,” insisting that his economic proposals that call for investing in programs to help the middle class must “be our North Star.”
Speaking at a small manufacturing plant in Cincinnati, Mitt Romney delivered a “prebuttal” of Obama’s speech. ”Don’t forget, he’s been president for three and a half years. And talk is cheap. Actions speak very loud,” Romney said. “If you want to see the results of his economic policy, look around Ohio, look around the country.”
Rebuilding America’s Middle Class, a coalition of community colleges, met in Indianapolis last week to discuss workforce development policies, affordability and removing regulatory barriers to training community college students for jobs.
“We face a defining moment for America’s future – one that will determine just how committed we are to providing everyone a shot at the American Dream and the middle class,” said Glenn DuBois, chancellor of Virginia’s Community Colleges and founding member of RAMC.
America’s community colleges provide a pathway to the middle class at a much lower cost than their four-year counterparts, the coalition points out. Students can complete a professional certificate in one to two semesters for $1,500 to $4,000 or a two-year degree for $7,000 to $8,000. An associate degree in nursing, with training time in a clinical setting, averages $10,000. That’s less than half what students pay at state universities.
In a keynote speech, Lumina’s Jamie Merisotis reaffirmed the foundation’s commitment to its “big goal” of raising the number of Americans with high-value college credentials and degrees from 40 percent now to 60 percent by 2025.
Community colleges . . . can be the exemplars for change in the system as a whole. And change is certainly needed.
Without question, this nation needs a more productive higher-ed system—one that enables institutions to meet each student where he or she is and provide the support each student needs to succeed. We need a system that ensures quality by fostering genuine learning, not mere program completion … a system that truly prepares students for work—and for life—in an increasingly global society.
Such a system would allow students to accumulate credits from different institutions over several years to earn a degree, minimizing waste and duplicative learning. It would acknowledge and credit prior learning—skills developed through work or military service and which often reflect a student’s abilities as well as or even better than earning classroom credit. It would also be far more focused on the needs of students and less on the needs of higher education institutions.
And it’s critically important that the system be designed to serve today’s students—the ever-growing number of low-income, first-generation, minority and adult students who constitute the “real world” on campuses and in classrooms these days. To reach the Big Goal, America needs all types of students to succeed, and they must succeed in far greater numbers. That means we need a student-centered system—one that is flexible, accessible, accountable and committed to quality.
In hard times, middle-class families are taking a second look at low-cost community colleges. Nationwide, 22 percent of college students with family incomes over $100,000 attended community colleges last year, up from 16 percent four years ago, according to Sallie Mae.
Younger, wealthier students demand more from community colleges, reports Inside Higher Ed.
“Community college gradually is gaining wider acceptance as the default option out of high school,” said Stephen G. Katsinas, director of the University of Alabama’s Education Policy Center.
Relatively affluent young students are typically better-prepared academically and have a good chance of earning a degree. They are also more likely to attend full-time, require less remediation than their peers and can be cheaper for community colleges to educate.
But this group is also demanding, as traditional-age students want a full campus experience with amenities like fitness centers and extracurricular activities, which can mean new buildings and strained student service budgets. They are also more likely to seek out counselors, experts said.
Raritan Valley Community College in suburban New Jersey is seeing a surge of young, middle-class students who plan to earn bachelor’s degrees. The college remodeled the cafeteria, expanded the fitness center and started planning a new student life and leadership center.
The increase in full-time students paying full-time tuition — usually for less-expensive general education courses — has helped offset the costs.
The rise in middle-class students seeking academic classes is good for low-income and career-tech students, writes Community College Dean. When the Great Recession raised enrollment, his college saw some displaced workers and many 18-year-olds who would have started at four-year colleges in better times.
The well-intended political leaders who are looking at cc’s as training centers should be careful what they wish for. The vocational programs we run are generally far more expensive to run than the classic liberal arts classes; they require specialized equipment and facilities, for starters, and the class sizes tend to run lower. A dirty little secret of higher ed finance is that certain disciplines – the chalk-and-talk liberal arts classes, mostly – subsidize higher-cost disciplines. All those full-to-the-brim psych classes help pay for the small and expensive nursing clinicals. Take away the psych classes, and the college’s per-student costs will skyrocket.
When privileged students demand the services that “real” colleges offer, then single moms will have access to those services too, the dean writes.
President Obama’s higher education plan represents a policy shift away from low-income students and toward the middle class, writes Inside Higher Ed.
“They’re sending a strong signal about where the second Obama administration, if we have one, is likely to go,” said Kevin Carey, policy director at Education Sector, a think tank. “They’re not going to just keep putting millions of dollars into the Pell Grant Program and letting the chips fall where they may.”
Expanding Pell Grants would do more to make college accessible, said Sara Goldrick-Rab, an associate professor of higher education policy at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
“I don’t have high hopes for [the new plan] being very effective in helping him achieve what I thought his goal was, which is getting more students from low-income families to be college graduates,” Goldrick-Rab said, describing the plan as “a little all over the place.”
“This is going to cause problems for the institutions that have the least resources to begin with.”
Judging whether a college provides “good value” is complex, writes Robert Sternberg, provost of Oklahoma State, in an open letter to the president.
Open-admissions colleges with many disadvantaged students won’t have the same graduation rates as elite institutions, he writes. “Over-focusing on completion can lead one to disregard the important issue of whether the education being completed is of the best quality our institutions of higher learning can provide.”
In addition, job preparation isn’t the only mission of colleges, Sternberg writes.
Rising tuition isn’t the biggest scandal in higher education, writes Jonathan Zimmerman, an NYU education and history professor, in the Los Angeles Times. It’s college’s failure to figure out whether students are learning. “Millions of American students and their families are mortgaging their futures to pay for a college education. We owe them an honest account of what they’re getting in return: not just what it costs, or where it will take them, but what it means.”
The death of vocational education is hastening the demise of the middle class, argues Marc Tucker in Ed Week.
Years ago, almost all the larger cities had selective vocational high schools whose graduates were virtually assured good jobs, Tucker writes. Employers made sure these schools had “competent instructors and up-to-date equipment,” so graduates would meet job requirements.
That ended when vocational education became just another class, often crowded out by academic requirements, Tucker writes.
I will never forget an interview I did a few years ago with a wonderful man who had been teaching vocational education for decades in his middle class community. With tears in his eyes, he described how, when he began, he had, with great pride prepared young men (that’s how it was) for well-paying careers in the skilled trades. Now, he told me, “That’s all over. Now I get the kids who the teachers of academic courses don’t want to deal with. I am expected to use my shop to motivate those kids to learn what they can of basic skills.” He was, in high school, trying to interest these young people, who were full of the despair and anger that comes of knowing that everyone else had given up on them, to learn enough arithmetic to measure the length of a board. He knew that was an important thing to do, but he also knew that it was a far cry from serious vocational education of the sort he had done very well years earlier.
Career academies were developed to motivate students, not to prepare them for real jobs, Tucker writes. Voc ed, now renamed “career technical education,” is no longer a “serious enterprise” in high schools.
By contrast, Japan, Singapore, the Netherlands, Denmark and other leading industrial countries “doubled down to improve both their academic and their vocational programs.”
They built vocational education programs that require high academic skills. And they designed programs that could deliver those skills. They did not sever the connections between employers and their high schools; they strengthened them. They made sure their high school vocational students had first-rate instructors and equipment. Their reward is a work force that is balanced between managers and workers, scientists and technicians. No one tells an individual student what he or she will do with their life. But those students have a range of attractive choices.
In his State of the Union speech, President Obama called for states to require school attendance till age 18 or graduation. If schools offer no options except the college track, that seems cruel.
Pell Grants should be targeted at the neediest students, argues Arthur Hauptman, a higher education policy consultant, on Inside Higher Ed. Eligibility rules have been expanded so much that half of undergraduates now receives a Pall Grant, driving up the costs. In addition, it should be easier and simpler to apply.
Instead of FAFSA, parents and students should use their federal income tax form to calculate their eligibility for student aid, Hauptman writes. Students enrolled less than half time would not be eligible.
Students who lost Pell eligibility would be able to use tuition tax credits.
Hauptman also proposes linking aid to colleges to the graduation rate of Pell recipients.
Middle-class families can’t afford college, writes Hamid Shirvani, president of California State University at Stanslaus. He proposes expanding Pell eligibility to families earning up to $100,000 and awarding larger grants.
Tuition tax credits, which help wealthier families the most, should be eliminated, Shirvani writes. That would cover some of the cost of an expanded Pell program.
Families spent 9 percent less on college last year, according to a new Sallie Mae study. Spending had been going up each year, despite the recession, but more parents say they’re asking their children to choose lower-cost colleges, live at home or attend part-time.
Twenty-two percent of students from high-income families started at community colleges, up from only 12 percent the year before. Thirty-seven percent live at home.
While 51 percent of parents were “willing to stretch” financially to send a child to college, that’s down from 64 percent in 2010.
The rise in low-income college students may be explained by families falling out of the middle class, writes Daniel Luzer on College, Inc.
The steepest decline in college spending came among upper-income families, those earning six-figure incomes, whose average outlay declined from $31,245 in the 2010 academic year to $25,760 in 2011.
Low-income families (earning $35,000 or less) reported increased college spending, from $17,404 in 2010 to $19,888 in 2011. That is a counter-intuitive finding, given the massive increase in need-based aid of recent years. The report suggests the increase could simply reflect that a broader share of survey respondents have low incomes.
Grants and scholarships cover 33 percent of all college spending, up from 23 percent a year ago. Forty-six percent of families receive grants, up from 30 percent in a single year. Nearly half of middle-income families received grant aid.
Though Americans are wary of college spending, 90 percent of students say college is an investment in the future.
The share of families who “strongly agreed” with the statement that college is essential for earning (as opposed to learning) rose from 59 percent in 2010 to 70 percent in 2011.
. . . The share of students who said their primary motive for college was to earn more money rose sharply, a one-year jump from 61 percent to 75 percent.
Average percentage of total cost of attendance paid from each source: