The dream: take students who are mostly unprepared to succeed at college and educate & prepare them for success in the real world.
The reality: most of these students will not realize a return on the investment of their time and acquisition of a ton of debt that they cannot discharge in bankruptcy. Many will fail to attend class, fail to take notes, fail to do homework, fail to learn, and will not complete - but because they have already sunk huge costs into the endeavor, will continue incurring more costs in spite of the writing on the wall.
The economics means that these schools are unsustainable. However, some people find success through these schools. How can we continue to serve these people?
Perhaps we could avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater by creating more community colleges, allowing more people to enroll in affordable community colleges, complete milestones at their own pace, while providing more direct subsidies of tuition for the truly needy. I agree that we would benefit from more German-style apprenticeship programs as well. For all of their worker protections, they still have incredibly low youth unemployment.
What's the case against community colleges historically? I graduated from university a while ago and still take a community college course from anything from math to photography when I have the time. I have been largely impressed by what they have to offer.
I have no idea, but our local community (junior) college is so highly regarded that our high schools generally recommended it as a good course for many, if not most, students. It routinely ranks in the top 5 of the AMATYC[1], and has transfer programs set up with many of the UC/CS colleges in state so you are guaranteed entry in those colleges if you complete the requirement classes with a certain GPA, regardless of high school performance (or completion!). Guaranteed transfer to UCLA or UC Berkeley as a science major at a fraction of the cost with half your college credits taken care of is nothing to sneeze at.
Santa Rosa Junior College[1]. I just looked up AMATYC rankings, and apparently they haven't placed since 2003-2004. I'm not sure if that's because of their math department degrading, or other colleges stepping up their game, or some failure at the state K12 level in supplying fundamentals (since the contest is based on student performance). It's possible my information is somewhat out of date (I went through there around 2000), but the first of my children will be making choices about colleges in a few years, and I was leaning towards recommending it (but haven't closely looked at it again recently).
From my experience at that time, it didn't feel significantly different than the campus I transferred to, except that the math classes at the Junior College were actually significantly harder, or at least more intense.
Ah, I still live there myself. A nice place to live if you can leverage something close to a SF payscale even though you're an hour north, as the housing cost is still relatively high compared to almost everywhere else in the country.
Community colleges with regional accreditation and freely transferable credits are not a problem. They serve several niches that large universities may find inconvenient or unprofitable--such as the hobbyist courses you mentioned, continuing education requirements, and remedial courses for students with inadequate high school education, and compete with some larger universities for the non-traditional students.
Spending some years at community college before transferring to a larger university's degree program is a great way for poorer students to save tuition money, and for academically unprepared students to catch up to their age cohort in a reasonable way. The disadvantage lies in the social networking, which is a big part of the value of (4 years of) on-campus university education. At a community college, it is somewhat less advantageous to make contacts with other students and professors, because they are less prestigious overall. Someone with an associate's degree is not as likely to help you get a job (at least for several years after graduation).
Most for-profit schools lack several of the elements I consider to be absolutely essential to qualify as a "community college". Many of them appear to be so horribly parasitic and exploitative that I can't figure out how they manage to get so many students.
When I was an undergrad, many years ago in my home state of Ohio, community colleges were definitely looked down on as being "lesser" than four-year universities, even if the universities were offering two-year Associates programs.
However, the State of Ohio overhauled how it helps funds state universities, where funds are allocated based on graduation rather than enrollment. As a result, state universities have started shifting more and more students to take low level courses at whatever community college, or colleges, they partner with. In particular, students with higher drop-out risk also get sent over to the community college.
I think that, along with many of the State's public universities slashing tuition on entry-level courses have helped improve the cost burden of higher education, particularly for those high-risk groups where they only take a few classes and fail to complete the program.
California community colleges are pretty affordable (with in-state tuition) and mostly pretty good, but not all states have a similar system: when I was in Wisconsin, community college was much closer to the cost of a four year school.
> What's the case against community colleges historically?
nothing, but they don't have slick advertising and promise you a $75k/year job, or aggressively recruit you by calling you non-stop and using manipulative pressure tactics like you're buying a $50,000 cell phone plan at a mall kiosk.
or aggressively recruit you by calling you non-stop and using manipulative pressure tactics
Wow, you just reminded me of something funny that happened about 15 years ago.
A younger friend of mine was interested in tech, and knew I was "good with computers". They had taken some online quiz, and said I should take it. So I took it, and filled out my info thinking I might win something (I was young, and didn't particularly care.) About 15 minutes later I got a phone call from a guy trying to tell me that I was in a dead end job, and that I would never be anything if I didn't go to the school he was pushing. I think I just laughed, and said something snarky like "at least I'm not calling people up selling things." Then about an hour later he called back from another number, and was making fun of my (admittedly awful) band, asking where he could buy tickets. I calmly just told him we would appreciate the support, and gave him our website. He just hung up in a huff, but it was a very weird exchange.
In any case, I am very surprised anybody ever buys anything from pushy salespeople. I always immediately equate it to a low quality product, or a business with questionable morals.
Never mind pushy. How do rude salespeople even exist?
I have never even liked the concept of a salesperson, as distinct from a vendor's point-of-sale clerk. I don't like to haggle; I check competitor prices, and use advertised sales or coupons.
> Never mind pushy. How do rude salespeople even exist?
They exist because people who give in to avoid conflict exist, so pushy and rude both, in certain contexts and with certain target audiences, work in sales.
If you've never sold its kind of hard to understand but doormats are people who have nothing to offer and who's time isn't valuable. Part of selling things to people is selling yourself. People with high value are allowed to be arrogant and rude , in moderation.
" I am very surprised anybody ever buys anything from pushy salespeople. "
Agreed. The irony is the majority of people do. Sadly, most people are irrational > 50% of the time. Sure. They are capable of being rational, but they don't exercise that capability.
My local one has cut back on everything in the last few years. No more counselors - just use the online tools! And they're mostly about getting federal financial aid. Placement consists mostly of 'apprentice' positions which means a vanload of students running the back end of a restaurant somewhere all summer and sharing an apartment meant for 2.
Strangely they don't advertise at all - at least in the media I see. While I saw IIT ads all the time. And they target the same demographic.
Community colleges have an inverse relationship with the economy - when the economy is in a slump they do well, when the economy is on the rebound their admissions go down. There's a bunch of reasons for this - people go to school when they're out of work, people who are going to school anyway may not think they can afford a "real" university when the economy looks ill.
Once the economy picks up people have jobs so they stop going, those who want to go to school feel good about their odds of taking on a ton of debt and go to a larger school.
(source: father was a professor at a vey large community college for ~40 years, mother is a prof at a university)
N=1 here, but I got no apparent utility from the existence of counselors in high school or college.
In retrospect they handled some registering paperwork for me, but they also planned my coursework for me as if I were the median student. In high school I had to press the counselor to let me take more AP courses than she thought was wise.
In college, it was more of a rubber stamp thing, where the counselor just approved my choices because they lined up with degree requirements.
Other than officially validating that my classes met the degree requirements, there was no value add. I'm glad to see someone at the helm realized a computer can do that just as well or better.
My high school counselors were actually reasonably helpful, mostly when it came to college advising stuff. I went to a small private HS though, and they knew everyone by the time you were a senior.
I had the same experience in college though. Heck, I'm an MSE student now and I don't even have an advisor because the one they assigned me left and I haven't been bothered to get a new one.
My high school counselor was incredibly useless, and quite possibly harmful. I also went to a small private high school (~30 students per grade level).
Her only focus, as far as I can tell, was to make sure we could be admitted to a UC. She spoke to us in 10th grade, letting us know that we needed to take three SAT II subject tests, and that two of them should be writing and math, while the third should be whatever we thought we'd get a high score in. She also stated that on no account should we schedule all three tests for the same day, because too much testing wears you out and your performance suffers.
I could tell that last bit was nonsense, but I believed the earlier advice and took the math, writing, and latin tests. The counselor bore a grudge against me from then on for ignoring her advice but still getting high scores. Come senior year, I learned that good schools usually required a science SAT II. Whoops.
I had almost no interaction with the school counselor besides the speech she gave to the 10th grade. I heard through the grapevine how upset she was that I'd flouted her non-individualized advice.
I had no "counselor" or similar role in college. The CS degree required a CS professor to sign off on my "plan", but that entire process consisted of me going to a professor in my final year, saying "I want to declare a CS major; here is my plan, all of the classes except that one are already complete", and getting a pro forma signature.
Several years ago De Anza College in Cupertino had an excellent array of in person classes (by CC standards). Too bad they are making a lot of those online, from what I remember seeing a few years ago (that also has issues with Gi Bill requirements that classes be in person).
I don't know that there is a "case" against them. My guess is that there are a bunch of mis-assumptions against them by proxy. I'm guessing but I think a chunk of people might think or suggest that the college prep education they pay their tax dollars for up with 12th grade is doing an inadequate job if community college or junior college is needed.
That and then there is a general "anti-university" sort of vibe in the world. "They waste a lot of time and money teaching you stuff that you don't need" or "it's just a piece of paper" where as maybe a vocational school might be a more "efficient" option for getting a job. I'm not expert but I believe a lot of community colleges try to offer college prep courses and try to help ease the transition, rather than just focus on vocational skills that can immediately be applied to a job.
I see more of a case against going to a four year college for a lot of people instead of just going to a much cheaper 2 year college for the first two years and transferring to get a 4 year degree. Most state four year colleges have a transfer program.
Honestly, even though this is harsh, I think your "the reality" description of for profit colleges applies to community colleges as well. Graduation rates at community college are very low (like 35%ish) and more than half of community college students need to take (and pay for) remedial classes before they even start earning credit.
They are comparatively affordable though and you aren't likely to go into crushing debt to go to community college, though it's possible, my uncle did it.
There was one of the "best" community colleges in the country in my hometown. Best ranked by, I have no idea, people in town just talked about how it's ranked high nationally. I took a few classes there the summers I spent in my hometown during my college years to speed up my university degree. The quality of classes and education was seriously lacking in the classes I took. They were not college level in my opinion (even though my credits had no problem transferring). Grades were posted online without names attached and it was shocking to me that half the class was struggling to pass such a basic class. These C community college students are not going to make it in a 4 year university if that's what they are aiming for.
My friend did get her LPN there though and seems like a good nurse so maybe it was ok for more "trade" type degrees.
Community college is not the answer to the kids flunking out of ITT tech. They won't do better in community college, they will just have comparatively less debt. Getting more kids in community college is certainly not the answer. More subsidies is even more not the answer.
> Community college is not the answer to the kids flunking out of ITT tech.
Who's trying to solve the problem of kids flunking out of ITT Tech? One of the problems with ITT Tech is that you can't flunk out of it.
> They won't do better in community college, they will just have comparatively less debt.
You seem to think that there's a problem with people doing badly at ITT Tech. The problem is that ITT Tech is bad, not that people are doing badly there. That people are saddled with a worthless qualification and are in crushing debt from the process of getting it is the problem.
> Getting more kids in community college is certainly not the answer.
To the question that nobody asked? No. To people ending up in horrible debt with a worthless credential? Of course it is. It would take you 4-5 years in community college to generate the debt that you can in a semester of one of these fake schools. Community colleges are fine. Some are great. I went from community college to university, and a ton of other people did with me, a few to Northwestern and the University of Chicago (I just went to UIC.) I'm sorry you didn't like yours, but you shouldn't judge all Chinese restaurants because the meal you had at the one in your hometown was too salty.
My experience is that there are plenty of community colleges, but people don't want to go to them because they feel they're stigmatized.
I have to admit that while I'm obviously against exploitative schemes, the shutdown of something that may have been a viable alternative to a traditional university hurts a little. Small trade schools, which ITT presented itself as even if it was in reality just a scam, are much better learning environments than large universities for most of the kind of stuff that hackers do.
I'm worried there will be a small cultural backlash against people without traditional educations on the heels of this shutdown. Since traditional university education is mostly just a massive, deeply-ingrained scam itself, this is disappointing.
That's not the dream. The dream is to get access to the billions of dollars the Federal Government spends to finance college degrees. Tuition costs at for-profit schools track neither those companies inputs nor the value they actually provide to the market.
The distinction is important. It is likely --- overwhelmingly likely, I think --- that there are programs with "the dream" you site that will work well. They just won't work like government-subsidized for-profit colleges.
They're actually quite a few apprenticeship programs here in the states. Learning a skilled trade just isn't sexy for a lot of kids and for some reason are looked down upon. Even though you can get a welding apprenticeship and be earning 70-80K right out of the gate.
High schools here are starting to encourage kids to take a more non-traditional route to a career and letting kids know there are other avenues other than 4 year colleges - including more vocational training, apprenticeships and other options like code camps.
The median pay for a welder is $38,000 per year. Only 10% earn more than $60,000 a year.
In other words, earning $70-80k "out of the gate" as you say, is rare. A person earning a median hourly income would need to work 3200 hours a year to make $70,000 (assuming 1.5x wage for all hours over 2000).
Roughnecks make $60-$80k in the oil industry. No idea what a welder makes, but I'm thinking it being a specialized skill, probably more. They often do work 70 hour weeks, as well. Not much else to do but work, drink or fight when far from home in a camp full of men.
Throw "underwater" in front of welder and you're looking at a couple factors of 6 digits.
Your last paragraph is spot on. Community Colleges (supported by MOOCs) and apprenticeship and trade school programs are the way to go.
3rd tier colleges with Ivy League prices aren't, and are only done based on misleading financial aid. I've seen a lot of resumes of people from for-profit schools. The graduates fall in 2 camps: Those who regret the decision, and those who don't realize how badly they were scammed.
90% of the time I see a title attached to someone's name ("Jane Smith, Phd" or "John Doe, MBA") it's from one of these overpriced degree factories, and it's a terribly negative signal.
It feels like non "for-profit" schools also suffer from the same reality, now that the prices are commonly hovering around 40K per year at smaller liberal arts schools.
The reality: most of these students will not realize a return on the investment of their time and acquisition of a ton of debt that they cannot discharge in bankruptcy. Many will fail to attend class, fail to take notes, fail to do homework, fail to learn, and will not complete - but because they have already sunk huge costs into the endeavor, will continue incurring more costs in spite of the writing on the wall.
The economics means that these schools are unsustainable. However, some people find success through these schools. How can we continue to serve these people?
Perhaps we could avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater by creating more community colleges, allowing more people to enroll in affordable community colleges, complete milestones at their own pace, while providing more direct subsidies of tuition for the truly needy. I agree that we would benefit from more German-style apprenticeship programs as well. For all of their worker protections, they still have incredibly low youth unemployment.