next »

[A Community College Admin]

I'm responding to the article on students who complete at a community college but don't go on to a four-year degree. The article claims that half of the students who graduate from a community college don't go on to get a four-year degree. While that is true, what that data doesn't reflect is that not all CC grads PLAN to transfer to a four year institution. The goal of many grads is to get an associate's degree and get a job - not continue their education. And that is not a bad thing, either. Many career paths at CC's do not, by the nature of the career, have a four-year option - or even need one. Graduates from our associate degree nursing program can sit for their RN boards and work at any hospital or clinic in the state, and employers are grabbing them up as quick as we can graduate them. There is a nursing school at a nearby four-year institution. The only reason for a student to continue there is if he or she would like to advance into a clinical speciality or nursing management. If not, they can get a job as a staff nurse and make the same salary as a nurse with a bachelor's degree.

[GS, Towson U.]

I will not comment on whether elite institutions of higher learning should commit themselves to ensuring that a certain percentage of enrolling students come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, this owing to the fact that such involves, yet again, another (mis)application of affirmative action (classism).  I would,, however, support a reformulation of current federal AND!!! state financial aid packages for needy students, provided our state and national solons finance said packages accordingly, ergo, via taxes on corporate entities and private citizens, including, as it were, professors.  Stafford and Pell Grants have aided students for generations, including this former student.  As long as academics are willing to pay a higher percentage of taxes, and they rarely are, I'd have no problem with a reformulation which yields these needy students adequate funding.  Of course, they will have to pay the fiddler's bill as well, just as this writer did all of those years ago.

[IMHO]

Let the students take student loans. That's what they're there for.

Stop asking the taxpayers to fund people going to college to major in queer studies or women's studies. It's not our responsibility. Don't know where this got started, but enough is enough. If they want the education, let them pay for it themselves.

[RLS]

Why would the author quote Michael McPherson, a researcher on student aid, when writing an article about community colleges?

McPherson's quote about the likelihood of finishing a BA is dead wrong - he should have read newer research before providing a quote (like Adelman's recent study on Community Colleges). A vast majority of higher education research is dry, stale, and irrelevant, but does McPherson have to make it wrong too?

[%sig%]

[EKG]

At the risk of sounding naive, I have always been inspired by the democratic mission of the public university.  To make it possible for individuals to study what they would like to study and then to participate in society through that new identity is a powerful dream.  I remember as a child being inspired by the highminded inscriptions on public libraries and I still really believe those inscriptions!  It's a truism now to say that a democracy requires a citizenry that can read, think analytically, and write.  And yet, as recent elections have illustrated, these are skills that are very much in need, and the need is growing not diminishing.  
It's unfortunate that as a society we are not supporting public universities as their mission is different from private schools.  The more "the masses" are denied access to education, the more we hasten the decline of our democratic system, what pretensions to democracy we have left anyway.  How could it be in our interest to make it next to impossible for people who are on the very bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder -- people like welfare mothers, prisoners in jail, and the working poor -- to enter and move through the educational system?
I would think that part of the solution, if there is one, could involve a formal study of the problem and recommendations made by the AAUP or other interested organizations.  
I wonder if there is a possiblility of conducting a national development campaign, specifically for public education, based on the appeal of the democratic principles it represents.  
I also wonder how funding organizations could help to address this problem, possibly by redirecting funds to public institutions and projects?

[assistant professor]

Hello all,

I am aware that the originaly impetus for this discussion was an article about elite private institutions. However, I really feel the issues under discussion go beyond elite schools and must encompass universities in general. I am an assistant professor at a public university in a large midwestern city. Our university, as far as I know, was intended to serve an "urban" population base. To some extent, this actually happens, as many of the students from the wealthier suburbs in our urban area go to private universities, to the state's largest public university with a more lavish physical campus in a rural area, or the flagship university of one of our neighboring states which happens to be located geographically close to many of our wealthier suburbs.

However, our student body does not truly represent the population of our city, either. Most of our undergraduate students are the offspring of upwardly mobile (read the PARENTS  are upwardly mobile--not something young people can control unless we believe babies choose what parents they are born to, or are allocated parents according to intrinsic merit) middle class urban families. The student body is not in tune either racially or economically with the population of the city we are located in, which, like most large cities has a large percentage of low income African Americans.

I am concerned about this fact for two reasons. First, I truly believe in the idea that in a democracy, large groups of people should not be permanently locked out of all chance of social mobility for reasons out of their control. The rising cost of university tuition combined with equally rapidly decreasing economic opportunities for people without a college degree, is, I am afraid, creating a de facto caste system. In contrast to a previous poster who implied that it is the business of elite colleges to educate and not to do social engineering, I believe it is the moral and ethical responsibility of members of a society to see to it that all members of that society have at least some chance of economic opportunity. Sadly, a college education is increasinglybecoming the gatekeeper of that opportunity, just as the possibility of attaining that education becomes more and more difficult for people from poor and working class families. On a moral level, I, personally find it objectionable to shrug my shoulders and say "My father (who coincidentally????? to my educational success was a college professor) planned for my education. I think that people washing dishes in restaurants, or taking care of the elderly in nursing homes for minimum wage should do the same, or they should accept the blame for the fact that their children cannot go to the university." I know that there are varying views of what democracy means, but this latter view just feels "wrong" to me.

Second, I suspect that for people who believe in higher education, it is politically dangerous to allow a four year college to become inaccessible or to be perceived as inaccessible to a large fraction of the population. Why should working people allow any significant portion of their tax money to go to institutions they see as being so elite that their own children and grandchildren have little chance of ever attending? We can already see the beginnings of that attitude in the current downturn in state funding available to public universities. However, people at private institutions who feel that such perceptions do not affect them should look at the amount of money coming into their own institutions originating in tax dollars-- from state subsidies to research grants.

When I was an undergraduate, as much as I hesitate to age myself by admitting this, it was possible for students of modest means to work two jobs while living at home over the summer and to work a few hours a week (in many cases as few as ten) during the school year, and graduate debt free. This is now an impossible dream for students from lower to moderate income families. THis change greatly saddens and worries me, and I think it should be of great concern to all educators.

[who you are talking about]

Okay so I am who this thread is about. I have put myself through school with no help from my parents. I now have graduated and I can not find employment. So, was it worth it? No. I am worse off now than before I borrowed the TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars it cost me to attend college. Higher education is not for the poor and I am about to go back to the same crummy job that I had previous to attending school. I find this more frustrating since several of my friends (also recent grads) are being taken care of by their parents while they job search for something in their area - something that I cannot do because I do not come from a wealthy family. So not only was getting through college a huge financial problem, but I am finding post graduation is becoming even more since in just a few short months I will begin to repay the money and I really have nothing to show for it.
I cringe everytime I see on television that a new coach is being paid some exorbitant amount or that a president has used school money to re decorate their home. I can't help feel that the whole thing is a joke. I wanted to get ahead and did it the only way that I knew how for my circumstances and now I owe so much money. I did work and I did get scholarships, but the cost of college is so high that even that was not enough. Really someone should rethink the shole system, because for many of us it is not working - and for many of us we are disgusted.

[Mike]

Assistant professor makes such a quaint case for making higher education affordable. But let's get real, we live in a country that has elected a Republican Congress for over a decade and a Republican administration for six years. If they could, the Republicans would abolish the estate tax, the income tax, taxes on investment income, Social Security, public education, any form of gun regulation, environmental protections, labor laws, campaign financing laws..... You get the picture. Every man for himself!

[%sig%]

[Matt]

I agree entirely. I had no choice but to attend an out-of-state school to pursue the degree I was interested in (and no, the academic common market was not an option). My parents covered about 5% of the costs, and the rest is on my shoulders as an enormous student loan debt. I'm not in a lucrative field and I'm merely trying to secure some semblance of financial freedom. Had I known what I know now before I began college, I may have given serious reconsideration to the field I've chosen, yet that would have meant turning away from something I've always been passionate about, which flies in the face of what I believe about the purpose of education and careers.

Oh well. I'm become so desperate that I've even attempted to raise money to pay down my loan debt (www.studentloanfund.com), yet I doubt that will see much success.  I'm not whining, it's just a tough world and it's a shame that the cost of education continues to rise in the U.S.

[%sig%]

[A.D.]

Mike wrote:

"If they could, the Republicans would abolish the estate tax, the income tax .."

.. then the states, on their own behalf, could increase or decrease spending on whatever they want, because there would be less federal taxes.

Some people never get it -- a federal "grant" is just part of your federal tax burden, minus the federal processing charge of 4%. If you lower taxes -- you keep the income AND the processing charge of 4%. And so, if you want more cops, hire them with the savings from federal taxes, and so forth.

How much simpler can it be? Does every answer have to come from Washington, D.C.? Do you think Washington, D.C., is just some ATM that money pours out of? NO -- that is your money! Think about it!

[%sig%]

[jselingo]

If this assistant professor at an urban university checks back in, please get in touch with me. I'm an editor here at The Chronicle and the subject you are talking about may be the topic of a future story in the Growing Divide series. You can reach me, Jeff Selingo, at 202-466-1075 or jeff.selingo(at)chronicle.com

Thanks.

Hello all,

I am aware that the originaly impetus for this discussion was an article about elite private institutions. However, I really feel the issues under discussion go beyond elite schools and must encompass universities in general. I am an assistant professor at a public university in a large midwestern city. Our university, as far as I know, was intended to serve an "urban" population base. To some extent, this actually happens, as many of the students from the wealthier suburbs in our urban area go to private universities, to the state's largest public university with a more lavish physical campus in a rural area, or the flagship university of one of our neighboring states which happens to be located geographically close to many of our wealthier suburbs.

However, our student body does not truly represent the population of our city, either. Most of our undergraduate students are the offspring of upwardly mobile (read the PARENTS  are upwardly mobile--not something young people can control unless we believe babies choose what parents they are born to, or are allocated parents according to intrinsic merit) middle class urban families. The student body is not in tune either racially or economically with the population of the city we are located in, which, like most large cities has a large percentage of low income African Americans.

I am concerned about this fact for two reasons. First, I truly believe in the idea that in a democracy, large groups of people should not be permanently locked out of all chance of social mobility for reasons out of their control. The rising cost of university tuition combined with equally rapidly decreasing economic opportunities for people without a college degree, is, I am afraid, creating a de facto caste system. In contrast to a previous poster who implied that it is the business of elite colleges to educate and not to do social engineering, I believe it is the moral and ethical responsibility of members of a society to see to it that all members of that society have at least some chance of economic opportunity. Sadly, a college education is increasinglybecoming the gatekeeper of that opportunity, just as the possibility of attaining that education becomes more and more difficult for people from poor and working class families. On a moral level, I, personally find it objectionable to shrug my shoulders and say "My father (who coincidentally????? to my educational success was a college professor) planned for my education. I think that people washing dishes in restaurants, or taking care of the elderly in nursing homes for minimum wage should do the same, or they should accept the blame for the fact that their children cannot go to the university." I know that there are varying views of what democracy means, but this latter view just feels "wrong" to me.

Second, I suspect that for people who believe in higher education, it is politically dangerous to allow a four year college to become inaccessible or to be perceived as inaccessible to a large fraction of the population. Why should working people allow any significant portion of their tax money to go to institutions they see as being so elite that their own children and grandchildren have little chance of ever attending? We can already see the beginnings of that attitude in the current downturn in state funding available to public universities. However, people at private institutions who feel that such perceptions do not affect them should look at the amount of money coming into their own institutions originating in tax dollars-- from state subsidies to research grants.

When I was an undergraduate, as much as I hesitate to age myself by admitting this, it was possible for students of modest means to work two jobs while living at home over the summer and to work a few hours a week (in many cases as few as ten) during the school year, and graduate debt free. This is now an impossible dream for students from lower to moderate income families. THis change greatly saddens and worries me, and I think it should be of great concern to all educators.

[saucebox]

Let me add some admittedly polemical comments. I'm not sure how many posters above with their various opinions about the working class in higher education actually *come* from the working class, but I'd like to add my two cents--because to be blunt, there's a lot above that I find questionable, offensive, or downright risible. I'm from the working class (and not faux lower class--e.g. "I'm the proletariat because my parents were Harvard-educated bohemian farmers who didn't make much money")--my father was a factory worker, no one in my family went past high school, my sister is a factory worker. I took on a ton of loans, worked a factory job in the summers, went to Ivies for undergrad and master's, and to a very well-known private university for my doctorate. I am now TT at the flagship campus of a southern state university system--and thus teach good-to-bad students of various income levels.

My answer to the moderator's original question? Yes, elite private universities should do more to assist financially the working-class students who are admitted and wish to attend (although I think the argument that they need hand-holding to "fit in" or that they don't go because they wouldn't "feel welcome" is bunk)--but my understanding is that the "divide" is due not so much to those talented kids who can't pay exorbitant tuition costs, but that the admissions process is inadvertently weighed against those kids because of social and cultural factors beyond the university's control--e.g. households that don't value reading, no SAT prep classes, mediocre public schools, simple unwillingness to pay for multiple college applications, etc. My house had no books in it other than mine. We had no dictionary. If I asked a question and my parents didn't know the answer, there was no encouragement to look the answer up elsewhere. They thought outside gifted programs were a waste of time. NB that these were not uncaring, impoverished parents--just people whose definition of a "happy childhood" did not include academic enrichment or college preparation. To me, the question is, then, how can elite private universities successfully evaluate the academic potential of a talented working-class student when his/her application is surrounded by those of students whose upper-class parents have not only furnished them with literal advantages (e.g. those SAT prep courses, private schools) but also a domestic context of intellectual engagement, curiosity, cultural breadth? It's one thing for Harvard to give free tuition to working-class students--but I pity the admissions officer who has to guess at how greatly a working-class applicant will blossom once in that atmosphere.     

Note that this is not my agreement that colleges "disclude" (why isn't "exclude" good enough, rather than a neologism invented in 2001?) poor students. Because I cannot scream in agreement loud enough with AnonYmous that the presumption of the posts that everyone *should* go to college is flat wrong. Many of the posts here seem to say, in effect, 1) everyone in the United States needs to go to college (because of the moral imperative of offering "economic opportunity" or "social mobility", or because of the current job landscape, or because after the "last election" our "democracy" needs it--as if universal college education would guarantee only Democrats in the White House!--I'm guessing lots of UTexas grads and alumni of my southern school voted for Bush), 2) therefore college should be within the financial reach of everyone, 3) therefore maybe private-university endowments should be taxed or less state money should go to elite publics like Michigan or...whatever. In other words, "educational opportunity for all Americans" no longer means free, public K-12 for all citizens--it's been racheted up to denote a BA too.

I have two problems with this. The first is that anyone who argues that fifth-rate schools should be supported by endowment-taxes from first-rate schools, or who argues that public or private universities should work more to make education possible for kids who want that BA even if they only want it because they need it to "get a good job," is hereby forbidden ever to complain in the Chronicle's "In the Classroom" forum about unmotivated, unprepared kids who don't know how to write, who ignore criticism, who think the humanities are stupid, who plain aren't interested in education. **Note that I am not saying that wealthy kids can't be slackers or that all working-class kids are like this.** After all, I'm a working-class kid and that wasn't my attitude. But any professor who a priori assumes that the explosion of "universities" in this country is a good thing, thinks that everyone should go to college because that's the only way to have a secure job, or believes (like a 15th-century Italian humanist) that the only virtuous citizen is one who has been forced to study the humanities--that professor has no right to complain about the weakening of the college educational experience into the glorified high school it is now.

The other problem I have with this equation? It is itself classist. I am so sick to death of the upper-middle class talking about the moral need to make possible "social mobility." Yes, a lot of blue-collar jobs suck. Again, I've worked in a factory, and my dad worked in one for thirty years. I am well aware of the fragility of employment for those with only high-school educations, and the fact that current economic changes (e.g. the global economy, the death of unions) are making that position even less stable. Nevertheless, it puts my knickers in a twist when we assume that a college education is the great salvation of and desideratum for the working-class generally--as if their lives are so unworthy, miserable, and subhuman without a college degree (and apparently, according to earlier posters, those who haven't gone to college can't even be effective citizens or vote properly, i.e. in agreement with the earlier poster's political convictions). I wanted to go to college. It was difficult to do so with my background. I would have liked more encouragement. I think, as I said above, that elite private universities should attend to the working class at the admissions stage in addition to the financial-aid stage. But you know what? My family didn't *want* to go to college. Not everyone does. And call me a fascist for saying it, but not everyone is *equipped* to. There's nothing wrong with that! I'm a professor, but I couldn't repair a sink or wire a house to save my life. It's only those who valorize academic intelligence and higher education as the chief virtue in humans who think that there *is* something wrong with that. One might argue that our vaunted rhetoric of "a better life" and "giving their kids the education they never had"--when we should know that all blue-collar jobs are not necessarily unsafe, demeaning, or exploitative--very easily mutates into a celebration of the upper class and a denigration of the working class. To my working-class thinking, that's just snobbery in a different disguise.