Middle-Class Families Increasingly Look to Community Colleges(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Middle-Class Families Increasingly Look to Community Colleges
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/education/learning/community-colleges-middle-class-families.html
193 comments
I did the CCC path about 6 years ago in Northern California too, but I did 3 years instead of 1. Tuition was free with the BOG Fee Waiver (I think around 50% of CCC students get it).
Not having to worry about financials really helped in reducing the pressure of changing majors. I went from CS to Mfg Engineering. If I had to factor in an additional $20000 into that, I probably would be working in a job I disliked rather than exploring other options.
On top of going to school for free, and living rent free, I was able to have a job for a few years which basically paid for my expenses in a 4-year.
Hardest part of it all was convincing my parents that I didn't want to go to Berkley even though I was accepted, but would rather go to a CC. The stigma behind CCs was the only hurdle.
All in all, got free school, had a savings, and knew what I wanted to do for a career. Would recommend it to anyone. PLUS I got to have my mom's cooking for lunch and dinner.
Not having to worry about financials really helped in reducing the pressure of changing majors. I went from CS to Mfg Engineering. If I had to factor in an additional $20000 into that, I probably would be working in a job I disliked rather than exploring other options.
On top of going to school for free, and living rent free, I was able to have a job for a few years which basically paid for my expenses in a 4-year.
Hardest part of it all was convincing my parents that I didn't want to go to Berkley even though I was accepted, but would rather go to a CC. The stigma behind CCs was the only hurdle.
All in all, got free school, had a savings, and knew what I wanted to do for a career. Would recommend it to anyone. PLUS I got to have my mom's cooking for lunch and dinner.
I'm wondering what's the opportunity cost that you paid by having Cal State on your CV instead of a top-ranked university. I sometimes see people who went to MIT or Stanford that I feel would not have gotten nearly as far as they have if it were Cal State. How many of your colleagues are from top universities?
Studies have shown that Calstate LAactually does a better job at promoting social mobility than UCLA.
that doesn't mean degrees from two are equal, or that there wasnt an opportunity cost paid by going to cc. I'm going to speculate that a UCLA degree is better than a calstate degree, but people going to UCLA are already high class, thus making UCLA lower mobility than calstate (cant move up when you're already at the top).
I was able to find this site that compares average income by where students went to college.
CSU Stanislaus: $47,000 (early career), $90,300 (mid career) MIT: $81,500 (early career), $147,000 (mid career)
Early career is 0-5 years experience. Mid career is 10+ years experience.
https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/bachelors?pag...
Obviously, we can't say that prestige of college and income are causal but the correlation is definitely there.
CSU Stanislaus: $47,000 (early career), $90,300 (mid career) MIT: $81,500 (early career), $147,000 (mid career)
Early career is 0-5 years experience. Mid career is 10+ years experience.
https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/bachelors?pag...
Obviously, we can't say that prestige of college and income are causal but the correlation is definitely there.
In order to establish some degree of causality we would have to look only at the population of students accepted to both schools. That way you're starting from a comparable baseline.
Also you'd have to control for major. MIT produces a lot of people working in technical fields with a higher average income. Cal State awards a broader range of degrees.
Here is one only for computer science.
https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/best-schools-...
Meh, I’m making more at mid career than the equivalent MIT grad, and I went to a flyover state university. Don’t sweat it. Just get good at what you like to do and the money will come naturally.
> I'm wondering what's the opportunity cost that you paid by having Cal State on your CV instead of a top-ranked university. I sometimes see people who went to MIT or Stanford that I feel would not have gotten nearly as far as they have if it were Cal State. How many of your colleagues are from top universities?
Community college is different from a state college. Community colleges only do your first two years,and you transfer to another school for the rest of your Bachelors.
This is what I'm looking at now... I really want to get into a top-10 school, but I'm a washout; I had terrible high school grades and I've only been published once in the meanwhile. A top-10 university won't let me in. Hell, I talked to the people at SJSU and they told me to take two years of community college and get back to them.
It's interesting, though; I looked into it, and it's dramatically easier to get into Berkely from a community college; Berkeley has like a 15% admissions rate out of high school... and a 25% admissions rate from a California community college.
(that said, I personally agree that a top-10 college is worlds better than a middle of the pack college. My only point here is that from my research? Even without any money constraints, the most realistic path for me to a top-10 college is through a community college.
Of course, if you have a chance to go to a top-10 college, my advice to you is to borrow like hell and do it, because top-10 colleges, as far as I can tell, give you dramatically better returns if you graduate, and they don't seem to cost dramatically more than the mid-range schools.
I personally think that the utility drops off pretty fast after you get out of the really top universities. I mean,I'm not saying it's not worth going to a middle of the road school... I'm just saying that I would be a lot more careful of taking out giant loans to go to a middle of the road school than I would when going to a top-10 school.)
Community college is different from a state college. Community colleges only do your first two years,and you transfer to another school for the rest of your Bachelors.
This is what I'm looking at now... I really want to get into a top-10 school, but I'm a washout; I had terrible high school grades and I've only been published once in the meanwhile. A top-10 university won't let me in. Hell, I talked to the people at SJSU and they told me to take two years of community college and get back to them.
It's interesting, though; I looked into it, and it's dramatically easier to get into Berkely from a community college; Berkeley has like a 15% admissions rate out of high school... and a 25% admissions rate from a California community college.
(that said, I personally agree that a top-10 college is worlds better than a middle of the pack college. My only point here is that from my research? Even without any money constraints, the most realistic path for me to a top-10 college is through a community college.
Of course, if you have a chance to go to a top-10 college, my advice to you is to borrow like hell and do it, because top-10 colleges, as far as I can tell, give you dramatically better returns if you graduate, and they don't seem to cost dramatically more than the mid-range schools.
I personally think that the utility drops off pretty fast after you get out of the really top universities. I mean,I'm not saying it's not worth going to a middle of the road school... I'm just saying that I would be a lot more careful of taking out giant loans to go to a middle of the road school than I would when going to a top-10 school.)
> because top-10 colleges, as far as I can tell, give you dramatically better returns if you graduate
That is probably dependent upon major and level.
I suspect that for engineering, for example, a "mid-tier" school probably is better for your average undergrad. I never saw the 400+ student lectures that are universally lousy at a mid-tier (20-50) university. You also got professors teaching classes at far lower levels (my Electronics 101 and Signals and Systems were taught by the Dean, himself)
This may be unique to engineering given that engineering schools actually have to answer to an accreditation body (ABET).
That is probably dependent upon major and level.
I suspect that for engineering, for example, a "mid-tier" school probably is better for your average undergrad. I never saw the 400+ student lectures that are universally lousy at a mid-tier (20-50) university. You also got professors teaching classes at far lower levels (my Electronics 101 and Signals and Systems were taught by the Dean, himself)
This may be unique to engineering given that engineering schools actually have to answer to an accreditation body (ABET).
I've got no opinion of the quality of instruction; I don't have the experience of either one.
All I'm saying is that most people didn't go to an elite school, and yet a lot of the really prestigious and remunerative Engineering and engineering/management positions from 2-4 levels up from me are occupied by graduates of elite schools. The higher up you go, it seems, the higher proportion of them went to an elite school.
I mean, that's totally unscientific, and just my perception, but if we could correlate the school you graduated from with people employed at the top-tier Engineering shops in the bay area, I bet elite schools would be vastly over-represented.
All I'm saying is that most people didn't go to an elite school, and yet a lot of the really prestigious and remunerative Engineering and engineering/management positions from 2-4 levels up from me are occupied by graduates of elite schools. The higher up you go, it seems, the higher proportion of them went to an elite school.
I mean, that's totally unscientific, and just my perception, but if we could correlate the school you graduated from with people employed at the top-tier Engineering shops in the bay area, I bet elite schools would be vastly over-represented.
Mostly bias, I suspect.
If you polled management from Westinghouse in the 1990's, you would find Pitt, CMU, Penn State and OSU overrepresented.
One thing you have to be careful of is that "elite" school graduates often have an over-inflated sense of how good they actually are. The ex-CTO of ModCloth had a video talking to a bunch of Russians where he talked about how the Pittsburgh team was better and more productive and that the SFO team was unjustifiably arrogant.
The guy was Adil Wali. Man, it took me way too long to find this. I guess ModCloth PR has sanitized the web: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4qYFqpLQBc#t=1h20m
If you polled management from Westinghouse in the 1990's, you would find Pitt, CMU, Penn State and OSU overrepresented.
One thing you have to be careful of is that "elite" school graduates often have an over-inflated sense of how good they actually are. The ex-CTO of ModCloth had a video talking to a bunch of Russians where he talked about how the Pittsburgh team was better and more productive and that the SFO team was unjustifiably arrogant.
The guy was Adil Wali. Man, it took me way too long to find this. I guess ModCloth PR has sanitized the web: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4qYFqpLQBc#t=1h20m
>Mostly bias, I suspect.
If bias gets you a significantly more remunerative or prestigious job, well, that should be factored into your return on investment, if you are looking for renumeration or prestige or to work around people with prestige.
>One thing you have to be careful of is that "elite" school graduates often have an over-inflated sense of how good they actually are.
My experience of the world is that having an over-inflated sense of your own worth doesn't hurt you any.
It's sad, because I personally find that kind of overconfidence super annoying, but if you are trying to maximize your career...
If bias gets you a significantly more remunerative or prestigious job, well, that should be factored into your return on investment, if you are looking for renumeration or prestige or to work around people with prestige.
>One thing you have to be careful of is that "elite" school graduates often have an over-inflated sense of how good they actually are.
My experience of the world is that having an over-inflated sense of your own worth doesn't hurt you any.
It's sad, because I personally find that kind of overconfidence super annoying, but if you are trying to maximize your career...
I did a similar thing in Texas (Austin Community College -> Texas State University), albeit later in life. I'm on a 4-person engineering team where the other three when to Carnegie Mellon, Stanford and Princeton.
I guess I worked at a moderately "prestigious" consultancy for a while that is a large factor in me having this particular job, but it seems like top universities aren't all that important beyond your first few years in the industry.
I guess I worked at a moderately "prestigious" consultancy for a while that is a large factor in me having this particular job, but it seems like top universities aren't all that important beyond your first few years in the industry.
This is a great plan and what I personally did 10 years ago. Some states also have high school programs, like A+, upon completion of which your college experience becomes tuition-free as long as your GPA stays above a certain point average in college.
CC is great and it’s awesome people find it so valuable but an equally important topic to explore is why college is not longer affordable for large parts of the population in the US.
After moving to California six years ago, I was surprised to learn how many high school students have this plan -- a couple of years at a local community college and a transfer to one of the bigger Cal schools.
It's a good strategy for many. My community college let me take basic calc based physics with a small class of 20 pre-engineering majors. After transferring to a big engineering school I met my wife. She took the exact same class but it now had 400 people and zero time with the professor. Also now it didn't use calculus.
Iirc it was phys2210
Iirc it was phys2210
Community college worked so well for you... but you had to transfer and go to a university instead?
Community colleges do not offer bachelor's degrees. They only offer associate's degrees, which are a 2 year program, and do not confer the same expected income potential as a bachelor's degree. That's what this article is about; do two years at a community college to get the GE classes out of the way, and then transfer to a four year university to get your degree. It's actually extremely common; it's what I did, and I only spent about $15k to get my bachelor's in computer science.
However, it's important to ensure that your intended university has an articulation agreement with whichever community college you're attending. In California, the IGETC certificates are accepted by all University of California and California State University campuses, and the CSU-GE Breadth certificates are accepted by all California State University campuses, but not UC campuses.
However, it's important to ensure that your intended university has an articulation agreement with whichever community college you're attending. In California, the IGETC certificates are accepted by all University of California and California State University campuses, and the CSU-GE Breadth certificates are accepted by all California State University campuses, but not UC campuses.
Oddly enough, my local community college was just approved to start offering two bachelors programs: https://www.wwcc.edu. I've seen this happen a few places, though admittedly it is somewhat rare and is a rule-bender in terms of the normal way we define community colleges. I'm also not that clear on why, as there are 4-year programs available from other public institutions a one-hour and two-hour drive away (IE: there isn't really a shortage)
Many Washington state community colleges in the Seattle area are being rebranded as colleges and are starting to offer bachelor degrees (BCC => Bellevue College, Seattle Central Community College => Seattle Central College). Not sure if that is being applied to Eastern Washington as well, but it makes sense. See: http://www.heraldnet.com/news/two-year-colleges-trending-awa...
Colleges are only 2 years tops, and some offer transfer programs to universities. The one nearby me in Florida: Valencia College actually gets you a guaranteed transfer to any University in the state practically. So you're more likely to be accepted in a university by going the College route first. Also in some cases you can take a lot of the math classes for a lot cheaper and they're still transferable as a result.
Good question. I can't speak for all community college in all states, but community colleges are generally considered "two-year" institutions.
This means they can only award associate and technical degrees, but not bachelor's (4-year) degrees. You need to transfer to a 4-year college for that, which is what I did.
This means they can only award associate and technical degrees, but not bachelor's (4-year) degrees. You need to transfer to a 4-year college for that, which is what I did.
My older sibling and I both grew up in a single-parent household. Since we were tight on money, my sister decided to go to community college after high school in part to look after me while our parent worked. After two years, my sibling transferred with a full ride to a good university.
Looking to my sibling's experience, I decided to leave high school when I turned 16 to attend community college and accrue transfer credits. 2.5 years later, I transferred to a good university and graduated earlier than my high school peers, saving tens of thousands of dollars. I had a blast during this time, as it really helped shape my most formative years of development, especially being exposed to so many diverse groups (as you would expect at a community college).
Now my other younger family members are looking to my experiences and deciding for themselves if the last two years of high school or first two years of university education are important to them. Now they are taking the community college route to save money, and they seem to understand that they can still derive meaningful experiences and relationships.
Looking to my sibling's experience, I decided to leave high school when I turned 16 to attend community college and accrue transfer credits. 2.5 years later, I transferred to a good university and graduated earlier than my high school peers, saving tens of thousands of dollars. I had a blast during this time, as it really helped shape my most formative years of development, especially being exposed to so many diverse groups (as you would expect at a community college).
Now my other younger family members are looking to my experiences and deciding for themselves if the last two years of high school or first two years of university education are important to them. Now they are taking the community college route to save money, and they seem to understand that they can still derive meaningful experiences and relationships.
Having a year (or more) of college credits upon high school graduation should be one of the education tracks available to every student.
It's a massive failure of imagination that this isn't already the case.
It's a massive failure of imagination that this isn't already the case.
It's called Advanced Placement.
You can rack up quite a lot of credits with AP courses.
As an engineer, I wiped out all my English requirements (6 credits). I wiped out Chemistry (6 credits and a really annoying lab at 4 credits). And I wiped out my first Calc class (4 credits). I think I killed a foreign language requirement, too (probably 6 credits).
That's 30 credits--or, a full year.
The big problem was that I was feeding into engineering which really doesn't let you wipe a lot out--knocking off Chemistry was a big deal (I also had an AP History score which didn't do anything for me, for example). Generally, all your good science scores just let you switch to a "more researchy" track where you take "deeper theoretical" (read: a shitton more work) classes.
You can rack up quite a lot of credits with AP courses.
As an engineer, I wiped out all my English requirements (6 credits). I wiped out Chemistry (6 credits and a really annoying lab at 4 credits). And I wiped out my first Calc class (4 credits). I think I killed a foreign language requirement, too (probably 6 credits).
That's 30 credits--or, a full year.
The big problem was that I was feeding into engineering which really doesn't let you wipe a lot out--knocking off Chemistry was a big deal (I also had an AP History score which didn't do anything for me, for example). Generally, all your good science scores just let you switch to a "more researchy" track where you take "deeper theoretical" (read: a shitton more work) classes.
The local 2 year college nearby created a Charter High School for grades 11-12 where there High School students take college classes to count for both college and high school. It was good for my son who graduated a few years ago. More 2 year colleges might have similar programs I am not sure http://middlecollege.guhsd.net/
I did that in high school instead of going to my state's elite public boarding school and transferred 66 credits into my state school. In retrospect it was a huge mistake, my outcomes since pale in comparison to the folks that graduated from the elite school (though it's possible the same would have happened).
Why should you have to get credits before you leave High School? Just teach more advanced subjects in both High School and College.
I agree with what you are saying but I think it’s a product of a failure somewhere else in the education system. No child left behind and other programs hinder education by applying one size fits all policies.
I agree with what you are saying but I think it’s a product of a failure somewhere else in the education system. No child left behind and other programs hinder education by applying one size fits all policies.
I didn't say that. I said it should be available to every student, which is not the case.
It's directly a failure of the primary education system, but it is more a failure of leadership and resources than anything else.
As far as NCLB, the response to it is a bigger problem than the law. There's nothing in it stopping states from investing in both helping underachieving students and in helping other students get ahead. NCLB didn't tell Oklahoma to slash taxes and burn their schools.
It's directly a failure of the primary education system, but it is more a failure of leadership and resources than anything else.
As far as NCLB, the response to it is a bigger problem than the law. There's nothing in it stopping states from investing in both helping underachieving students and in helping other students get ahead. NCLB didn't tell Oklahoma to slash taxes and burn their schools.
> a failure of leadership and resources
Why is it more expensive to teach, say, calculus than algebra? Offering more advanced classes should not cost more.
Why is it more expensive to teach, say, calculus than algebra? Offering more advanced classes should not cost more.
Well, the more difficult/specialized the subject, the fewer available teachers. Plus, someone that knows calculus well enough to teach it likely has other job prospects (competitive pay).
I guess I'm the opposite, you'd have to pay me extra to induce me to teach the more basic material.
[deleted]
> Why is it more expensive to teach, say, calculus than algebra?
Because educating someone to teach more advanced subjects takes more times and resources.
Because educating someone to teach more advanced subjects takes more times and resources.
But the teachers have masters degrees.
Besides, teaching college freshman calculus is not exactly magneto hydrodynamics.
Besides, teaching college freshman calculus is not exactly magneto hydrodynamics.
But most of them don't have masters degrees in mathematics, do they? Many of them will have a generic Master of Education degree.
The normally accepted education level for teaching a university-level class is a PhD.
The normally accepted education level for teaching a university-level class is a PhD.
You don't need a masters degree in math to teach freshman calculus.
I was taught freshman calc by grad students - with no "education" training whatsoever. Perhaps these "masters" of education are learning the wrong things.
Freshman calculus just isn't that hard, and isn't much beyond algebra. This "gee math is hard" crap is, well, crap. No PhD is necessary. Hell, I taught it to my kids on the kitchen table, and I have no advanced degree and never took a course in education.
I was taught freshman calc by grad students - with no "education" training whatsoever. Perhaps these "masters" of education are learning the wrong things.
Freshman calculus just isn't that hard, and isn't much beyond algebra. This "gee math is hard" crap is, well, crap. No PhD is necessary. Hell, I taught it to my kids on the kitchen table, and I have no advanced degree and never took a course in education.
Do you think someone needs any education at all in a subject to each it? Do you think someone who has never studied calculus should be able to teach it?
> Do you think someone needs any education at all in a subject to each it?
Of course I do. I am just bemused by teachers having masters degrees yet be unable to teach any freshman college level class.
> Do you think someone who has never studied calculus should be able to teach it?
Freshman calculus is not rocket science, and I expect someone with a masters degree to be able to handle it.
Of course I do. I am just bemused by teachers having masters degrees yet be unable to teach any freshman college level class.
> Do you think someone who has never studied calculus should be able to teach it?
Freshman calculus is not rocket science, and I expect someone with a masters degree to be able to handle it.
> Of course I do.
Right, well here's the answer to the original question then. If you want teachers to be able to teach calculus, and you agree people should have an education in a subject to teach it, then you need the teachers to study calculus themselves, which they weren't necessarily doing, because they studied things other than maths, so you need to use more resources to have them also take calculus classes, so it costs more.
Right, well here's the answer to the original question then. If you want teachers to be able to teach calculus, and you agree people should have an education in a subject to teach it, then you need the teachers to study calculus themselves, which they weren't necessarily doing, because they studied things other than maths, so you need to use more resources to have them also take calculus classes, so it costs more.
[deleted]
High schools may have trouble finding teachers who are qualified to teach advanced subjects, also they may not have enough students to really justify a class at that level.
Whereas a Community College may have an easier time finding instructors, since there aren't licensing rules or a need to employ the instructor full-time. Also they draw from a wider student population so may not have as much difficulty filling a class.
Whereas a Community College may have an easier time finding instructors, since there aren't licensing rules or a need to employ the instructor full-time. Also they draw from a wider student population so may not have as much difficulty filling a class.
> High schools may have trouble finding teachers who are qualified to teach advanced subjects
One wonders about such teachers who have advanced masters degrees in education. Why are they not qualified to teach freshman college material?
One wonders about such teachers who have advanced masters degrees in education. Why are they not qualified to teach freshman college material?
A Masters degree is usually qualification to teach college in the field of the degree (regular faculty in community colleges, lecturers in major universities—though lecturers are somewhat rare).
A masters in education is qualification to teach education classes, not other subjects.
A masters in education is qualification to teach education classes, not other subjects.
Someone with a masters in education may or may not have the knowledge required for a particular subject, say a math or science. Or another way, just because someone has a masters in education doesn’t mean they can teach any specific class. Their background could be in counseling, administration, school psychology, or education methodology... not, for instance, typical high school subjects.
A degree in anything but the subjects they teach? Does that mean that a high school physics teacher knows nothing more about physics than high school physics?
> Does that mean that a high school physics teacher knows nothing more about physics than high school physics?
Probably not; the state policies adopted under the pressure of NCLB and it's successors put strong pressure on districts to hire teachers with at least a bachelor's degree in the field taught for secondary schools, and even teachers that don't will often have additional coursework as part of college breadth requirements.
Probably not; the state policies adopted under the pressure of NCLB and it's successors put strong pressure on districts to hire teachers with at least a bachelor's degree in the field taught for secondary schools, and even teachers that don't will often have additional coursework as part of college breadth requirements.
Students are not equally skilled. The majority of students are not really a collage level English and History and Math and Art class starting in 11th grade, though a significant number could take a subset of those.
Simply making High School arbitrarily harder is kind of meaningless if most students would fail the material.
Simply making High School arbitrarily harder is kind of meaningless if most students would fail the material.
Only the best art students are ready for collage level Art classes in 11th grade.
This sort of leads into competency based advancement rather than time based advancement. Rather than having a 4 year program where you rank graduates by competency (gpa), have a higher bar of competency and have people graduate at different rates.
That's part of what I'm getting at when I talk about it being an available track.
You can still have everybody lined up to finish ~17 or 18, just allow more variation in what they have finished. If someone doesn't plan to go on to college, maybe they don't need to take college prep math classes and can take classes that will serve them better.
You can still have everybody lined up to finish ~17 or 18, just allow more variation in what they have finished. If someone doesn't plan to go on to college, maybe they don't need to take college prep math classes and can take classes that will serve them better.
> Just teach more advanced subjects in both High School
Many affluent high schools have an abundance of AP/IB courses. Many high schools also have additional college-credit courses (where the high school acts as a sort of proxy for a local college, often a community college). At a "good" high school, students can combine all of these options to have not just a year, but even junior or senior standing by the time they start college.
There are three problems with this approach:
1. Not all high schools are affluent / have their crap together enough to offer these options.
2. students need to be prepared. Enough of them that you can fill a course. This can be a barrier in less affluent areas.
3. Students have to know about this option, usually starting in middle school so that they can begin working ahead early (e.g., finish algebra in middle school).
> ...and college
The pattern here seems to be picking the college vs. picking the more advanced courses at the college. So, you don't take "more advanced couses at regional State campus"; instead, you go to (your field's equivalent of) MIT/Stanford/Berkeley/CMU. Or at least the state flagship. C.f., algorithms at an elite university vs. algorithms at the branch campus of a middling state system. The differences in both depth (rigor) and bredth are, in many cases, quite extraordinary.
> No child left behind and other programs hinder education by applying one size fits all policies.
Do you have any data to justify this assertion? AP offerings have increased since NCLB was enacted.
I don't disagree with you that NCLB is a net harm, but I don't think it's accurate to place the blame there for this particular problem. (Also, whenever NCLB comes up, it's worth pointing out that states bear a lot of responsibility -- they have quite a bit of leeway in how NCLB is implemented.)
Many affluent high schools have an abundance of AP/IB courses. Many high schools also have additional college-credit courses (where the high school acts as a sort of proxy for a local college, often a community college). At a "good" high school, students can combine all of these options to have not just a year, but even junior or senior standing by the time they start college.
There are three problems with this approach:
1. Not all high schools are affluent / have their crap together enough to offer these options.
2. students need to be prepared. Enough of them that you can fill a course. This can be a barrier in less affluent areas.
3. Students have to know about this option, usually starting in middle school so that they can begin working ahead early (e.g., finish algebra in middle school).
> ...and college
The pattern here seems to be picking the college vs. picking the more advanced courses at the college. So, you don't take "more advanced couses at regional State campus"; instead, you go to (your field's equivalent of) MIT/Stanford/Berkeley/CMU. Or at least the state flagship. C.f., algorithms at an elite university vs. algorithms at the branch campus of a middling state system. The differences in both depth (rigor) and bredth are, in many cases, quite extraordinary.
> No child left behind and other programs hinder education by applying one size fits all policies.
Do you have any data to justify this assertion? AP offerings have increased since NCLB was enacted.
I don't disagree with you that NCLB is a net harm, but I don't think it's accurate to place the blame there for this particular problem. (Also, whenever NCLB comes up, it's worth pointing out that states bear a lot of responsibility -- they have quite a bit of leeway in how NCLB is implemented.)
You shouldn't have to, but it should be offered for multiple reasons. It eases the hs college transition, it gets you a head start on prereqs and credits, among other things.
I will be forever grateful that my high school encouraged this.
I will be forever grateful that my high school encouraged this.
If the credits are standardized its easier to compare "advanced high school course" to "remedial college course"
This is essentially what AP classes are, is it not. If you go to a decent high school and take a good amount of AP’s it will keep you busy and challenged.
Of AP, IB and dual enrollment AP is by far the worst option. There is a cumulative test at the end of the year where if you do not score high enough you won't receive college credit where as IB and dual enrollment focus on the content of the course throughout the semester to.award credit (and sometimes a cumulative project). Aced your AP class but perform poorly on the test, no credit for you!!! Also the tests cost hundreds of dollars extra. You might ask what does "not scoring high enough entail"? The answer is it is arbitrary. The test is scored 1-5 with 5 being highest and schools pick a range of 3-5 to award credit.
Problem is IB comes with a whole host of other requirements that AP doesnt. My school required volunteer time, a yearly special project, and yearlong courses (instead of semester-long which made all non-IB courses harder to schedule) to enroll in IB courses. I even know 2 people who were forced out of IB as juniors after the school canceled Latin classes, because they wouldn't have time to take 3 credits of a new language. Both of those people say they were glad to switch to AP though, less stress and more flexibility. Passing the exams wasn't hard either. Also IIRC, IB absolutely did require a test score for credit, and it wasn't any easier than AP.
I also dropped out of IB, but in favor of a new program that let me take 2 online state college classes during the school day. So I got full college credit, great professors, and kept my schedule flexible. So agreed that dual enrollment is better if the option is available.
I also dropped out of IB, but in favor of a new program that let me take 2 online state college classes during the school day. So I got full college credit, great professors, and kept my schedule flexible. So agreed that dual enrollment is better if the option is available.
One benefit of AP is that you can take the test even if you haven't taken the class. So if you're motivated and can travel to some place where the test is being offered, you can rock out a shit ton of credits.
I wish somebody would have told me that. I think our school district paid for students AP exams if they were enrolled in the class, so I didn't even know there was an option to pay on your own.
In my brother's case the AP English teacher was horrible. So he dropped the class and paid out of pocket to take the exam. The AP teacher happened to be the proctor and she was pissed the day he showed up. Having activist parents makes a world of difference. shrug
I think AP is slower- like 1/2 speed. But some high schools have partnerships with the CCs to get 1-1 college credit in high school.
AP is slower because high school students take 7 courses/semester and college students take 4. If you take 7 year-long AP courses, the full courseload is about the same. Also, colleges often have 1 and 2 semester versions of the same material, to suit varying student needs.
I've seen this in some cities and love it. I unfortunately had a district that was targeted at the lowest common denominator. My high school would only consider accepting community college credits if you were in danger of not graduating. I was a dual-enrollment student (HS+CC) and took Calc 1-3 + DiffEq, Kinetics, E&M, and more while still taking the filler courses at my high school.
I went to a community college and transferred to a prestigious public university.
In my experience, if you find a good community college, the high volume classes tend to be better than they are at a big school. There are usually less than 50 students (vs up to 400), the teachers actually enjoy teaching, and the material is easy enough that the teachers understand it just as well as top tier professors.
Honestly, California is the only state where I'd unabashedly recommend this path though. The community colleges are consistently good, you have multiple choices in terms of top tier public universities, and transfer students are given priority.
In my experience, if you find a good community college, the high volume classes tend to be better than they are at a big school. There are usually less than 50 students (vs up to 400), the teachers actually enjoy teaching, and the material is easy enough that the teachers understand it just as well as top tier professors.
Honestly, California is the only state where I'd unabashedly recommend this path though. The community colleges are consistently good, you have multiple choices in terms of top tier public universities, and transfer students are given priority.
> Honestly, California is the only state where I'd unabashedly recommend this path though. The community colleges are consistently good, you have multiple choices in terms of top tier public universities, and transfer students are given priority.
The are curriculum-design rules at the 4-year state schools in CA to smooth the transition too, which I think is fairly unusual. When I was working at UC Santa Cruz, my department proposed a new degree program, and an important part of the overall proposal was to show that there would be ways to fulfil the first two years of credit requirements (plus the prereqs for years 3/4) via courses commonly offered at in-state community colleges, so you could transfer in and still graduate on time. This does complicate design of certain kinds of curricula (it tends to discourage course sequences that strongly build on each other), but gives students more options.
The are curriculum-design rules at the 4-year state schools in CA to smooth the transition too, which I think is fairly unusual. When I was working at UC Santa Cruz, my department proposed a new degree program, and an important part of the overall proposal was to show that there would be ways to fulfil the first two years of credit requirements (plus the prereqs for years 3/4) via courses commonly offered at in-state community colleges, so you could transfer in and still graduate on time. This does complicate design of certain kinds of curricula (it tends to discourage course sequences that strongly build on each other), but gives students more options.
I would so most states are setup where if you transfer from a CC to a public state school, you basically have everything transfer and can finish all your schooling in 4 years.
I'm from Maryland, and our CC system, at least for my county, is great. We even had a pretty good career center. Knew many people who where able to get internships at places like NASA or NIH though the community college.
I did my first two years of electrical engineering at CC and it was great. Pretty much all my professors in EE classes had PhD's in the field and were of comparable quality to the ones at my 4 year university. Plus, since your in a class of only like 20 kids, you get a much better relationship. Had a few help me with a getting an internship sophomore year.
I'm from Maryland, and our CC system, at least for my county, is great. We even had a pretty good career center. Knew many people who where able to get internships at places like NASA or NIH though the community college.
I did my first two years of electrical engineering at CC and it was great. Pretty much all my professors in EE classes had PhD's in the field and were of comparable quality to the ones at my 4 year university. Plus, since your in a class of only like 20 kids, you get a much better relationship. Had a few help me with a getting an internship sophomore year.
I taught across the stream at NVCC an you are correct. I sent students to great schools (and had students from great schools for career changes).
Near metro populations, night classes tend to be filled with strong learners- often already degreed- and with interesting stories to tell as well.
Near metro populations, night classes tend to be filled with strong learners- often already degreed- and with interesting stories to tell as well.
When I lived in Minnesota about 10 yrs ago this was the case there too and as far as I am aware it still is
Little State Promo: Minnesota has one of the best collegiate systems in the US from community to top tier university in case anyone didn’t know :)
Little State Promo: Minnesota has one of the best collegiate systems in the US from community to top tier university in case anyone didn’t know :)
In Wisconsin you could transfer all classes from the two year schools to the 4 year schools and the pricing was definitely much better. I don't know for sure if that is still the case though. But it also had the advantage of being taught by the actual professor and not some TA.
When I transferred to a private school I was a bit older so they really gave some leeway in how they transferrey credits. I am guessing they would not have done the same for a 19 year old though
When I transferred to a private school I was a bit older so they really gave some leeway in how they transferrey credits. I am guessing they would not have done the same for a 19 year old though
[deleted]
I live in WI, and this is still the case.
Historically, the community and tech college teachers were unionized, so it attracted people who wanted to make a career of teaching. They were actually better off than the adjuncts who were teaching the same courses at the university. When the state broke the public sector unions a few years ago, a lot of teachers took early retirement (five or six of my friends), and I don't know how this will affect things going forward.
Historically, the community and tech college teachers were unionized, so it attracted people who wanted to make a career of teaching. They were actually better off than the adjuncts who were teaching the same courses at the university. When the state broke the public sector unions a few years ago, a lot of teachers took early retirement (five or six of my friends), and I don't know how this will affect things going forward.
This Wikipedia article doesn't really describe this aspect, but as I understand it, the Wisconsin Idea extended to a integrated approach to higher education. The technical colleges, numerous university campuses, and the University of Wisconsin Madison worked cooperatively to provide a full range of accessible and desirably higher education opportunities to Wisconsin's students -- and working adults.
There's a reason UW Madison has been and continues to be so highly regarded.
There was also a greater difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition, with higher requirements to qualify for the latter. Wisconsin was focused on educating Wisconsonites, and bettering the state thereby.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Idea
Unfortunately, as another commenter mentioned, this lauded and effective system has come under attack by opponents of any sort of public spending and public good.
And, as Wisconsin has lost many union and other well-paying jobs, it's become harder to retain domestically educated talent.
It would be a shame if the system is destroyed. It's allowed this small, largely rural state to punch significantly above its weight.
There's a reason UW Madison has been and continues to be so highly regarded.
There was also a greater difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition, with higher requirements to qualify for the latter. Wisconsin was focused on educating Wisconsonites, and bettering the state thereby.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Idea
Unfortunately, as another commenter mentioned, this lauded and effective system has come under attack by opponents of any sort of public spending and public good.
And, as Wisconsin has lost many union and other well-paying jobs, it's become harder to retain domestically educated talent.
It would be a shame if the system is destroyed. It's allowed this small, largely rural state to punch significantly above its weight.
[deleted]
Washington state has this property also (good CCs, transfer priority, curriculum designed for transferring). They’ve been renaming many of the CCs as colleges recently, but the same still holds.
Washington seems to have pretty good community colleges, but the best part is that Washington has a program called Running Start where your last two years of high school can be fulfilled by taking classes at a community college. This makes it possible (albeit difficult) to graduate from "high school" with two years of college credits and transfer to a university. Not doing this ranks pretty high on my list of life regrets.
I would recommend this path in Virginia, as well.
Why does the community college need to be "good"? Mostly you take classes there that have nothing to do with your major.
If I'm required to take a class outside my major I'd rather it be good (& cheap), no?
You also take foundation classes for your major. Compare an introductory physics lecture from MIT or Berkeley you find online to your average community college class. At community college you find people with insufficient understanding of algebra so if something like Ohms Law comes up you have them memorize all three forms. This is a problem, you can't teach for understanding.
As a student you find yourself in a situation like Feynman in Brazil. You sit in class and have to teach yourself the material again properly yourself.
As a student you find yourself in a situation like Feynman in Brazil. You sit in class and have to teach yourself the material again properly yourself.
How is that different than computer science? The only people I know that were successful at my unknown state college were people who were geeks and either already knew how to program or took an interest in it outside of class.
If you teach chemistry at community college you'll find that arrow-pushing and teaching reaction mechanisms is discouraged by faculty and resented by students because these things won't be on the test. But arrow pushing is a unifying concept that shows up everywhere; the sooner it is introduced, the better, as a chemist you really need to be familiar with the idea and its implications.
As a c.c student wishing to go further you have two problems: you need to discover the concepts that were not taught because they were "too difficult" and you need to gain familiarity with them, and that is easier with proper instruction,.
As a c.c student wishing to go further you have two problems: you need to discover the concepts that were not taught because they were "too difficult" and you need to gain familiarity with them, and that is easier with proper instruction,.
Isn't that kind of like saying core curriculum isn't important?
That's exactly what I am saying. I think we would be better off if we treated Software development like a trade that had a two year up to date curriculum that actually prepared people to be hit the ground running at a company. Yes, I'm advocating the modern equivalent of "Java Schools".
>"That's exactly what I am saying. I think we would be better off if we treated Software development like a trade that had a two year up to date curriculum that actually prepared people to be hit the ground running at a company."
So you see no reason for schools to produce people with well-rounded educations? You don't feel its important for society to have adults who have a wide-ranging perspective on things like literature, philosophy, history, art and non-computer science?
Also the OPs comment and this entire discussion is of general secondary education and not software development.
So you see no reason for schools to produce people with well-rounded educations? You don't feel its important for society to have adults who have a wide-ranging perspective on things like literature, philosophy, history, art and non-computer science?
Also the OPs comment and this entire discussion is of general secondary education and not software development.
> You don't feel its important for society to have adults who have a wide-ranging perspective on things like literature, philosophy, history, art and non-computer science
If you can’t teach the necessary fundamentals of that in high school that’s a problem with you’re K-12 system.
The idea of a “well rounded education” is the result of the middle class trying to ape the leisure classes, who went to college to learn things they didn’t need to support themselves financially.
If you can’t teach the necessary fundamentals of that in high school that’s a problem with you’re K-12 system.
The idea of a “well rounded education” is the result of the middle class trying to ape the leisure classes, who went to college to learn things they didn’t need to support themselves financially.
It's amusing that you view 4 years of college as excessive when your profiles states you are a lawyer. This means that you yourself spent between 7 and 8 years working on a degree.
Also your email address is as @northwestern.edu, a university that very much promotes the important of a well-rounded educational experience.
Also your email address is as @northwestern.edu, a university that very much promotes the important of a well-rounded educational experience.
If I wanted to be a lawyer from the outset, I'd say the 8 years I spent in post-secondary school was about 5 years too long. That's not how they do it in England, for example, where law is a 3-year undergraduate major. I'm pretty critical of the fact that legal education has been taken over by academics--there is large and growing disconnect between the three years of mandatory schooling and anything you need to actually know as a lawyer. Shortening law school to one year plus a few years of apprenticeship would be vastly preferable.
My undergraduate degree is in aerospace engineering, and you do really need a 4-year degree to do that. You can't learn aeroelasticity on the job. But the traditional engineering disciplines (aero, chemical, mechanical, etc.), along with medicine and pure sciences are the exception. The vast majority of people don't need 4 years of post-secondary education, including many "professionals" (bankers, lawyers, etc.).
My undergraduate degree is in aerospace engineering, and you do really need a 4-year degree to do that. You can't learn aeroelasticity on the job. But the traditional engineering disciplines (aero, chemical, mechanical, etc.), along with medicine and pure sciences are the exception. The vast majority of people don't need 4 years of post-secondary education, including many "professionals" (bankers, lawyers, etc.).
How is that amusing? If he wanted to be a lawyer, he didn’t have a choice. Also, who better to have the opinion that a “well rounded” education is not all it’s cracked up to be than someone who has it? I think I have more credibility to state that taking 6 courses of Calculus, Differential Equations, Linear Algebra, etc. was a waste time for co outer science as someone who has been in the industry for years than someone who has not gone to college.
>"Also, who better to have the opinion that a “well rounded” education is not all it’s cracked up to be"
Which is a very different statement than saying pursing a well-rounded educational experience is nothing more than "trying to ape the leisure classes."
Which is a very different statement than saying pursing a well-rounded educational experience is nothing more than "trying to ape the leisure classes."
There's an argument to be made that "liberal arts education" and "trade education" should be separate degrees, and that force-mating them makes both worse.
In college I took:
The idea that most students develop this sort of thing in college is pretty clearly a myth.
* 1 literature class (shakespeare elective)
* 0 philosophy classes
* 1 history class (history 101)
* 0 art classes
* 2 science classes (physics 1 & 2)
The idea that most students develop this sort of thing in college is pretty clearly a myth.
I majored in electrical engineering at a good school, and had to take ~8 humanities and social science credits, so that is surprising to me.
I went to CMU and majored in ECE (minor in CS). In addition to the above I took a humanities concentration in economics which was 3 classes so that's 5 humanities classes total. I think? I graduated in 2000 so I might be forgetting something, but I don't think so.
Did you actually believe at some point that taking 0 philosophy and 0 art classes would give you a wide-ranging perspective on those topics?
>"The idea that most students develop this sort of thing in college is pretty clearly a myth."
So based on your own anecdotal experience core curriculum contributing to a well-rounded education is a "myth."
Also the idea isn't that you immediately "develop this sort of thing in college." It's to provide a foundation for thinking about things for the rest of your life.
>"The idea that most students develop this sort of thing in college is pretty clearly a myth."
So based on your own anecdotal experience core curriculum contributing to a well-rounded education is a "myth."
Also the idea isn't that you immediately "develop this sort of thing in college." It's to provide a foundation for thinking about things for the rest of your life.
[deleted]
Isn't that what they are doing in high school?
And it's not just about software development, most college curriculumns could be more focused into a two year degree.
And it's not just about software development, most college curriculumns could be more focused into a two year degree.
>"Isn't that what they are doing in high school?"
To some degree yes but a much more limited scope than what's available at the university level. I don't think most public high schools teach humanities, political science etc.
Two year schools are basically vocational schools. I don't doubt there is a place for that but I think they are different products.
To some degree yes but a much more limited scope than what's available at the university level. I don't think most public high schools teach humanities, political science etc.
Two year schools are basically vocational schools. I don't doubt there is a place for that but I think they are different products.
Unfortunately, having a two year degree with experience still gets your resume thrown in the trash at the first step of the funnel. Ask me how I know. Doesn’t make sense fir most jobs but there it is.
All the CCs in my area have direct transfer agreements with their state universities and some private colleges.
For state uni's they have a two year plan where all the credits transfer and you start as a junior.
A lot of the out-of-state uni's also list courses on their websites that will directly transfer so you can check if you're planning to attend later.
For state uni's they have a two year plan where all the credits transfer and you start as a junior.
A lot of the out-of-state uni's also list courses on their websites that will directly transfer so you can check if you're planning to attend later.
Every community college system will seek to make their credits as transferable as possible, it makes the schools vastly more attractive.
The 4 year places generally impose limits on how many credits they will recognize from a transfer, for the obvious reasons, they want their cut and they don't want to be a rubber stamp for some other program.
The 4 year places generally impose limits on how many credits they will recognize from a transfer, for the obvious reasons, they want their cut and they don't want to be a rubber stamp for some other program.
I found out that limit is not very stringent if you are older with a good GPA, the admissions person will play fast and loose with the definitions and just to get you enrolled.
It also helps to be in a state that values their junior colleges. In Virgina the community college systems have a standardized set of classes, and deals with mant state universities where virtually all the credits transfer over. I only had one class I had to take over again, and looking back the version taught at my junior college really was quite different.
For me community college was the pathway to the middle class. I went to several community colleges in the Los Angeles area (due to affordability, proximity, availability of classes) and then transferred to the UC system. I had 0 support besides the Cal Grant/Pell grant and my part time job
My kids will be strongly urged to go to community college, and I recommend it to everyone I'm close to. I may have missed out on college friendships, but I moved away after college anyway. I had about $13k loan debt at the end of 4 years, and I paid that off 2 years later even though it took me 9 months to land a job (because I didn't study CS and went for web development)
My kids will be strongly urged to go to community college, and I recommend it to everyone I'm close to. I may have missed out on college friendships, but I moved away after college anyway. I had about $13k loan debt at the end of 4 years, and I paid that off 2 years later even though it took me 9 months to land a job (because I didn't study CS and went for web development)
So for me, the college friendships that have persevered the most in to my late 30s were those made in community college. This is from 2 years spent in community college, 2 years at a 4-year, and then 2 1/2 years in an unfinished doctorate.
I can see that happening if you live at home. For me, between a job and commuting to 2 different colleges during the week and sometimes doing the Saturday classes I don't think I spent the amount of time it takes me to get close to people with anyone.
>"I had about $13k loan debt at the end of 4 years, and I paid that off 2 years later even though it took me 9 months to land a job (because I didn't study CS and went for web development)"
That's not too bad at all. Can I ask how long ago was this?
That's not too bad at all. Can I ask how long ago was this?
I graduated in 2012. I have acquaintances with over $60k loan debt for a bachelor's degree who graduated years before me from the UC system as well.
I went to community college because my family was "middle class poor". Income just too high to qualify for grants or scholarships, but too low to afford to send me to university (for various reasons).
Community colleges are great in many ways. They provide a low cost option to get a four year degree. They give a second chance if you messed around in HS. It's less competitive to transfer into a top tier public university than it is to apply out of high school. Community colleges are more diverse - you'll meet a lot of older, experienced people, people working full time, and all ranges which just isn't possible at elite universities. Community colleges in California can also pay teachers more than the corresponding UC - so you'll find UC professors doing classes at the local college to make extra cash.
However, I would always recommend to go to a single university for 4 years if you can afford it. Some of the teaching quality in community colleges is just atrocious, unfortunately. A close friend of mine transferred into the UCB physics program, and he really struggled - the undergrad math prep at community college was a joke compared to what most of his fellow students had done. I also believe it's better to experience the full curriculum as intended. And there can be huge benefits to the dorm life.
Community colleges are great in many ways. They provide a low cost option to get a four year degree. They give a second chance if you messed around in HS. It's less competitive to transfer into a top tier public university than it is to apply out of high school. Community colleges are more diverse - you'll meet a lot of older, experienced people, people working full time, and all ranges which just isn't possible at elite universities. Community colleges in California can also pay teachers more than the corresponding UC - so you'll find UC professors doing classes at the local college to make extra cash.
However, I would always recommend to go to a single university for 4 years if you can afford it. Some of the teaching quality in community colleges is just atrocious, unfortunately. A close friend of mine transferred into the UCB physics program, and he really struggled - the undergrad math prep at community college was a joke compared to what most of his fellow students had done. I also believe it's better to experience the full curriculum as intended. And there can be huge benefits to the dorm life.
CC is a mixed bag. CCs can shine in that the teachers are hired to teach rather than research and that they can be more practical / approachable than a specialized researcher.
I had a really lucky CC. I lived in a R&D military town hours from any other town. Some of my teachers were literally rocket scientists from the military base who happened to love to teach. The other teachers tended to be the spouses of the rocket scientists (which biases towards them also being smart) who had no where else to teach because of how remote the town is. They were all smart, passionate about teaching, and were practical.
I had a really lucky CC. I lived in a R&D military town hours from any other town. Some of my teachers were literally rocket scientists from the military base who happened to love to teach. The other teachers tended to be the spouses of the rocket scientists (which biases towards them also being smart) who had no where else to teach because of how remote the town is. They were all smart, passionate about teaching, and were practical.
That's awesome! I had one good math teacher for my differential equations class. He had worked on rocket propulsion systems in the Navy, had a Ph.D from MIT I believe. I wasn't quite sure why he was a full time teacher at CC - maybe he just loved teaching differential equations to the masses. But he was an exception, for sure.
My experience at a community college was quite different. The physics professors were known to kick people's asses but you learned a lot, and the math courses ->calculus were really good. However, not all classes had the same level of rigor. I took grammar course at the community college, and all we did was watch videos of flying saucers with the instructor going on and on about the conspiracy cover-up. WTF, it was a grammar course. So a mixed bag.
My physics professor at CC was an ex surfer whose son was a famous world class surfer. He would spend most classes telling us about surfing, mixed with warnings to never go into Physics unless you loved it because there was no funding. We did lots of fun labs, but nothing too rigorous. He was an amusing guy.
My worse teacher was for CS. He was supposed to teach us about assembly language, but he had absolutely no idea what he was doing, and it was obvious to everyone. He would just babble nonsense for hours every lecture, trying to pretend he understood. The class revolted and petitioned to get him expelled from the college! I think he was one of the most senior lecturers there, he might have even been chair of the CS dept. Can't say I'm surprised, I think CS teaching quality is poor outside of 4 year schools.
My worse teacher was for CS. He was supposed to teach us about assembly language, but he had absolutely no idea what he was doing, and it was obvious to everyone. He would just babble nonsense for hours every lecture, trying to pretend he understood. The class revolted and petitioned to get him expelled from the college! I think he was one of the most senior lecturers there, he might have even been chair of the CS dept. Can't say I'm surprised, I think CS teaching quality is poor outside of 4 year schools.
the undergrad math prep at community college was a joke
My Calculus I instructor authored several college math texts, BTW.
Now that I think about it, the only instructors I recall having Ph.Ds who did their own lecturing were at the CC.
Most of the professors I had at my university also taught part time at the community colleges. I did all 5 years at a university but I can only assume that just like community colleges, every professor is different and their quality ranges quite heavily. So much of college life is about learning how to self-study anyway and knowing when you need to go to the TA, or spend quality time in the library.
I only really decided to go into engineering late in my final year of high school, and I used the local community college (conveniently located across the street from my HS) to take all the calculus and computer science classes that I didn't have covered. In a year, I covered my high school requirements, and my first year of university calculus, computer science, chemistry and physics. The class sizes were tiny, which was amazing, and to this day, I still think my Calc II and Intro to Java professors were two of the best I've ever had. I still have some of the textbooks my Java prof gave me from his own collection because he thought I'd take them further than his lectures.
I transferred into a pretty hard to get into mechatronics program with an OK GPA, but having a year and a half of post-secondary under my belt was a huge bonus when the kids who were coming into engineering school straight out of high school realized that our profs were just too busy to help.
It's really a path that I suggest to everyone that I've met who's just leaving high school. Take some time, save some money, and if you're lucky, get better student-prof interaction.
I transferred into a pretty hard to get into mechatronics program with an OK GPA, but having a year and a half of post-secondary under my belt was a huge bonus when the kids who were coming into engineering school straight out of high school realized that our profs were just too busy to help.
It's really a path that I suggest to everyone that I've met who's just leaving high school. Take some time, save some money, and if you're lucky, get better student-prof interaction.
DVC?
> "5% of what you learn here will be applicable in your job."
That's what the dean of my university department told all the students.
Not for economics.
Not for political science.
This was for Electrical Engineering.
I wouldn't suggest to anyone to go to college.
It'd be more like a last-ditch "Ok, just don't start off at a university."
With the accessibility of information on the internet and the future collapse of student debt, college degrees will be an afterthought.. (besides doctors, dentists, most engineers)
That's what the dean of my university department told all the students.
Not for economics.
Not for political science.
This was for Electrical Engineering.
I wouldn't suggest to anyone to go to college.
It'd be more like a last-ditch "Ok, just don't start off at a university."
With the accessibility of information on the internet and the future collapse of student debt, college degrees will be an afterthought.. (besides doctors, dentists, most engineers)
Some of the large introductory classes at four year institutions are not so great anyway, as many faculty would rather focus on research and classes that feed in talented undergrads for summer research.
IMHO the biggest potential loss are the social connections that can develop over four years versus just two. These can be crucial for friendship and for career connections, depending on the field.
IMHO the biggest potential loss are the social connections that can develop over four years versus just two. These can be crucial for friendship and for career connections, depending on the field.
I don't know about the social connections angle so much. If you're the type of person who really gets into that, i.e, would be in a fraternity or sorority, there are advantages. But as a more introverted/tech type person I didn't maintain contact with any friends or roommates from college much at all after graduation, nor they me. I can't point to any particular social connections from college that benefited me afterwards.
Fraternities and sororities are not anything like I mean.
I learn a lot from from college friends in other and the same fields. It teaches me a lot about the world, which is essential for identifying new areas for startups. I can bounce ideas off them and get feedback from entirely different perspectives; college is a great base for developing broad set of connections that all share at least a minimum amount of interest in critical thought.
I learn a lot from from college friends in other and the same fields. It teaches me a lot about the world, which is essential for identifying new areas for startups. I can bounce ideas off them and get feedback from entirely different perspectives; college is a great base for developing broad set of connections that all share at least a minimum amount of interest in critical thought.
Good. If nothing else, maybe it’ll help instill values of financial responsibility (I watched a report on crippling student debt where a woman went $150k in debt to get a theatre arts degree from NYU and now works as a waitress).
There are actually lots of options to get a good education without breaking the bank. Transfer from community college is just one. Another is becoming a state resident for good state schools (eg UT Austin). This may require delaying college for a year but that’s not so bad either. Yet another is ROTC.
I’m all for people asking “how much will this cost and how much will it improve my economic prospects?”
At the high end I’m kinda sick of hearing FAAMG SWEs complain about not making ends meet because they can’t afford a 5 bedroom house in Palo Alto as well as pay $400k per child to send them to a top tier private school so it’s not like the need for learning financial responsibility is limited to the middle class.
There are actually lots of options to get a good education without breaking the bank. Transfer from community college is just one. Another is becoming a state resident for good state schools (eg UT Austin). This may require delaying college for a year but that’s not so bad either. Yet another is ROTC.
I’m all for people asking “how much will this cost and how much will it improve my economic prospects?”
At the high end I’m kinda sick of hearing FAAMG SWEs complain about not making ends meet because they can’t afford a 5 bedroom house in Palo Alto as well as pay $400k per child to send them to a top tier private school so it’s not like the need for learning financial responsibility is limited to the middle class.
It's hilarious how many weird outbursts I've seen from people who probably consider themselves middle class talking about how they barely have any money at all after they pay their rent in Manhattan, send their kids to private school and max out their 401ks, and make payments on their investment properties. It's like alright buddy lol
>"Good. If nothing else, maybe it’ll help instill values of financial responsibility (I watched a report on crippling student debt where a woman went $150k in debt to get a theatre arts degree from NYU and now works as a waitress)."
Shouldn't that be values of financial "viability."?
Most people don't want to becomes dead beats on their debt.
Unfortunately here's a whole system in place that encourages 18 year olds to take on hundred of thousands in dollars in debt in order to purse a degree which has very few professional prospects of earning enough to pay that money back to the lender(s.) Practically speaking it's debt-peonage.
To contrast to other forms of loans - if I earn $30K a year and apply for a mortgage for a house costing $800k I likely will turned down by the lending institution since I lack the means to meet those mortgage payments. In other words I am not a good risk.
However the same lending institution will gladly allow me to borrow $260K for 4 years of NYU tuition in order to obtain a degree in Drama that I will have almost no chance of being able to pay back.
Shouldn't that be values of financial "viability."?
Most people don't want to becomes dead beats on their debt.
Unfortunately here's a whole system in place that encourages 18 year olds to take on hundred of thousands in dollars in debt in order to purse a degree which has very few professional prospects of earning enough to pay that money back to the lender(s.) Practically speaking it's debt-peonage.
To contrast to other forms of loans - if I earn $30K a year and apply for a mortgage for a house costing $800k I likely will turned down by the lending institution since I lack the means to meet those mortgage payments. In other words I am not a good risk.
However the same lending institution will gladly allow me to borrow $260K for 4 years of NYU tuition in order to obtain a degree in Drama that I will have almost no chance of being able to pay back.
Sorry, FAAMG SWEs?
Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Google Software Engineers.
[deleted]
Honestly, I can't understand how people can sympathize with college students going into crippling debt any more than a proverbial Chinese teen who sold his kidney to purchase an iPhone (this news story from a couple of years ago probably was fake anyway). Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Try empathizing instead of merely sympathizing.
I was unable to "empathize" with people early in my career who were complaining about "crippling student loan debt" that were sitting right next to me, making the same amount I was when I went to an unknown state college and graduated with no debt.
It especially makes no sense to me for a resident of GA to ever go to a private college when you can get free tuition via the HOPE scholarship to go to well known public schools like GA Tech. If you get accepted to GA Tech, more than likely your grades and test scores were high enough to qualify for HOPE. If they weren't, you shouldn't be spending money going to an expensive private college anyway.
It especially makes no sense to me for a resident of GA to ever go to a private college when you can get free tuition via the HOPE scholarship to go to well known public schools like GA Tech. If you get accepted to GA Tech, more than likely your grades and test scores were high enough to qualify for HOPE. If they weren't, you shouldn't be spending money going to an expensive private college anyway.
I don't know what it's like in the US but in the UK there is a relentless pressure on students to go to University and take on huge debts. There aren't many people at age 18 who have the ability to ignore what every adult around them is telling them and say no.
I'm assuming an 18 year old has parents that should be guiding them.
It's hard to blame an 18 year old for their parents advice.
I can emphasize with anyone, up to Hitler. (Full disclosure, have several Holocaust survivors in my family). Doesn't mean I will sympathize with them.
>"Honestly, I can't understand how people can sympathize with college students going into crippling debt ..."
Because they are 18 years old and lack any life experience when they agree to take on this debt. And they are assured by smiling loan officers and their college's financial aid office that "everything is fine."
Because they are 18 years old and lack any life experience when they agree to take on this debt. And they are assured by smiling loan officers and their college's financial aid office that "everything is fine."
Would you please stop doing flamewars on HN? This isn't thoughtful discussion and it just leads to low-quality sniping.
I like CCs but there are definitely some downsides to consider as well: (speaking from california perspective)
- Our cc’s are all impacted and getting the classes you need is nearly impossible. Many people end up taking 3 years to graduate.
- When you do transfer to a bachelors program, you’ll find that your cc was missing a lot of the pre reqs you need for your major (depending on your major). I’ve seen a lot of cc students at UC schools have to go back and take freshman and sophmore level classes. (total could end up taking 6 years overall)
- All the other students when you transfer are already friends and have relationships with the professors and local businesses. Whose going to get the prestigious research position, the new guy or the one whose been bonding and proving themselves to the professor for 2 years? Same goes for internships.
- Who you spend time with shapes who you are. If you are a bright individual, it can be frustrating or depressing being around some of your peers in CC. My girlfriend took an online cc class where they had to submit a paragraph to their class forum. Two students literally copy and pasted her response word for word.
- Our cc’s are all impacted and getting the classes you need is nearly impossible. Many people end up taking 3 years to graduate.
- When you do transfer to a bachelors program, you’ll find that your cc was missing a lot of the pre reqs you need for your major (depending on your major). I’ve seen a lot of cc students at UC schools have to go back and take freshman and sophmore level classes. (total could end up taking 6 years overall)
- All the other students when you transfer are already friends and have relationships with the professors and local businesses. Whose going to get the prestigious research position, the new guy or the one whose been bonding and proving themselves to the professor for 2 years? Same goes for internships.
- Who you spend time with shapes who you are. If you are a bright individual, it can be frustrating or depressing being around some of your peers in CC. My girlfriend took an online cc class where they had to submit a paragraph to their class forum. Two students literally copy and pasted her response word for word.
That sounds like incredibly poor planning on the part of the students and like there are no standards for colleges to follow.
Contrast that with attending Houston Community College where they ask you if you'll be going on to a 4 year degree and if so in what and where. They can tell you exactly what courses to take at HCC to carry on to U of H, TAMU, UT, etc to finish a degree.
Contrast that with attending Houston Community College where they ask you if you'll be going on to a 4 year degree and if so in what and where. They can tell you exactly what courses to take at HCC to carry on to U of H, TAMU, UT, etc to finish a degree.
In some states it's not really the fault of the student; no amount of planning would've helped you. The 4 year college will keep changing the structure of the requirements, and while their own students will be grandfathered in, a transfer student will have to somehow make up the credits that have changed out from under them. I've seen this even in states that supposedly let you transfer everything from a 2 year. You technically still have a bunch of credits, they just don't fulfill all of the requirements of your degree progression at that point; it's sort of like if you had switched majors as a junior.
well specifically for my school there were a lot of classes that we took freshman and sophomore year that weren’t offered at any CC. Therefore students had to go back and take those cs courses.
If more bright students attend CC, the schools will adjust their course offerings to match. CC teachers don't want to teach only losers.
I say nope to every point.
> Our cc’s are all impacted and getting the classes you need is nearly impossible. Many people end up taking 3 years to graduate.
This problem is not unique to CCs; this happens at all public schools. The solution is to plan your schedule years ahead. Most school officials readily give this advice, it's not a secret.
> When you do transfer to a bachelors program, you’ll find that your cc was missing a lot of the pre reqs you need for your major (depending on your major). I’ve seen a lot of cc students at UC schools have to go back and take freshman and sophmore level classes. (total could end up taking 6 years overall)
There's almost always a test you can take after transfer to verify your level of play.
When I transferred to a UC, they wanted me to retake some levels in my foreign language that I'd already completed at CC. Or, they offered a test I could take to jump ahead. I took the test. They saw that I could hang at the higher level. They let me enroll.
I wanted to take an upper-level writing course without taking the underclass pre-reqs. The program asked me to audition by submitting some samples. I did. They saw that I could hang at the higher level. They let me enroll.
This is fair and reasonable policy. UCs are world-class universities and they have a responsibility to maintain that standard. CCs offer everything needed to prosper after transfer (I think this is state policy), but it's up to students to make the most of their CC time.
> All the other students when you transfer are already friends and have relationships with the professors and local businesses. Whose going to get the prestigious research position, the new guy or the one whose been bonding and proving themselves to the professor for 2 years? Same goes for internships.
These are public schools. You are invisible to professors and faculty for the first couple years. I was better known to my programs after taking my transfer tests than most of the students who'd already been there for years. As far as friends go, again, these are public schools. They're too huge for any one clique to run the roost. Making friends has less to do with your transfer status and more to do with...your ability to make friends.
> Who you spend time with shapes who you are. If you are a bright individual, it can be frustrating or depressing being around some of your peers in CC. My girlfriend took an online cc class where they had to submit a paragraph to their class forum. Two students literally copy and pasted her response word for word.
I took vector calculus at my CC. Do you assume my vector calculus class was full of idiots just because it was at the CC?
What still surprises me most about CC was the large population of incredibly bright people I found there. They're not hard to find, but it's incumbent upon the student to put themselves in the more challenging classes where they congregate.
> Our cc’s are all impacted and getting the classes you need is nearly impossible. Many people end up taking 3 years to graduate.
This problem is not unique to CCs; this happens at all public schools. The solution is to plan your schedule years ahead. Most school officials readily give this advice, it's not a secret.
> When you do transfer to a bachelors program, you’ll find that your cc was missing a lot of the pre reqs you need for your major (depending on your major). I’ve seen a lot of cc students at UC schools have to go back and take freshman and sophmore level classes. (total could end up taking 6 years overall)
There's almost always a test you can take after transfer to verify your level of play.
When I transferred to a UC, they wanted me to retake some levels in my foreign language that I'd already completed at CC. Or, they offered a test I could take to jump ahead. I took the test. They saw that I could hang at the higher level. They let me enroll.
I wanted to take an upper-level writing course without taking the underclass pre-reqs. The program asked me to audition by submitting some samples. I did. They saw that I could hang at the higher level. They let me enroll.
This is fair and reasonable policy. UCs are world-class universities and they have a responsibility to maintain that standard. CCs offer everything needed to prosper after transfer (I think this is state policy), but it's up to students to make the most of their CC time.
> All the other students when you transfer are already friends and have relationships with the professors and local businesses. Whose going to get the prestigious research position, the new guy or the one whose been bonding and proving themselves to the professor for 2 years? Same goes for internships.
These are public schools. You are invisible to professors and faculty for the first couple years. I was better known to my programs after taking my transfer tests than most of the students who'd already been there for years. As far as friends go, again, these are public schools. They're too huge for any one clique to run the roost. Making friends has less to do with your transfer status and more to do with...your ability to make friends.
> Who you spend time with shapes who you are. If you are a bright individual, it can be frustrating or depressing being around some of your peers in CC. My girlfriend took an online cc class where they had to submit a paragraph to their class forum. Two students literally copy and pasted her response word for word.
I took vector calculus at my CC. Do you assume my vector calculus class was full of idiots just because it was at the CC?
What still surprises me most about CC was the large population of incredibly bright people I found there. They're not hard to find, but it's incumbent upon the student to put themselves in the more challenging classes where they congregate.
Me and my whole family have gone to community college and I would recommend it to anyone wanting to save money and graduate with little or no debt.
The first two years at university are basically a rehash of stuff you probably should have already learned in high school IMHO (Calculus, English Composition, humanities electives) and junior colleges are a great way to take those courses at affordable costs.
One thing I would recommend - even over community college - is taking CLEP tests. I found out about them a little late but was still able to clep 2 years worth of spanish and french which meant I got credit for around 8 courses for a grand total of $160 bucks. I also clep'd most of my humanities electives like history and sociology. It requires some personal effort i.e. find a textbook at your local library and read and study it - but is definitely worth it from a time/costs perspective.
Anyways, I wanted to mention it because a lot of people don't know about CLEP tests and they saved me literally thousands of dollars (in junior college classes costs, probably 50k if you compared it to a top tier university).
The first two years at university are basically a rehash of stuff you probably should have already learned in high school IMHO (Calculus, English Composition, humanities electives) and junior colleges are a great way to take those courses at affordable costs.
One thing I would recommend - even over community college - is taking CLEP tests. I found out about them a little late but was still able to clep 2 years worth of spanish and french which meant I got credit for around 8 courses for a grand total of $160 bucks. I also clep'd most of my humanities electives like history and sociology. It requires some personal effort i.e. find a textbook at your local library and read and study it - but is definitely worth it from a time/costs perspective.
Anyways, I wanted to mention it because a lot of people don't know about CLEP tests and they saved me literally thousands of dollars (in junior college classes costs, probably 50k if you compared it to a top tier university).
CLEP credit is not often accepted at "top tier" universities.
I went from a community college with an associates to a bachelor degree program. On one hand some of my credits didn’t transfer over to my state college . But on the other hand I got a great gpa, figured out that college was a good fit and got my bachelors in CS.
I also was able to compile a weather model at a weather forecasting class . I took Hapkido and got my purple belt . I had a bunch of fun and became treasurer at the philosophy club. I learned Linux and Python at the local Linux club . My community college experience was great !
I also was able to compile a weather model at a weather forecasting class . I took Hapkido and got my purple belt . I had a bunch of fun and became treasurer at the philosophy club. I learned Linux and Python at the local Linux club . My community college experience was great !
On one hand some of my credits didn’t transfer over to my state college
That’s why I am very glad North Dakota adopted a common course numbering so all the credits transfer.
That’s why I am very glad North Dakota adopted a common course numbering so all the credits transfer.
I went to community college in San Diego, CA when I was trying to return to school to finish a computer science degree. It was a godsend.
I was able to complete linear algebra, introductory physics, and vector calculus for something like $200 in voluntary book costs (tuition was waved). My instructors were knowledgeable and professional. I got more out of the physics class in particular than I did out of the University of Minnesota version, which were run by bored TA's and researchers who frankly had better things to do than lecture.
That saved me a full semester of university tuition. I had already completed the breadth electives in a previous pass through the academic world, but if I hadn't I could have shaved off another year or so, for a savings upwards of $22,000.
I believe we should continue to expand and invest in community colleges very aggressively, and keep them very cheap, and very easy to get into.
I was able to complete linear algebra, introductory physics, and vector calculus for something like $200 in voluntary book costs (tuition was waved). My instructors were knowledgeable and professional. I got more out of the physics class in particular than I did out of the University of Minnesota version, which were run by bored TA's and researchers who frankly had better things to do than lecture.
That saved me a full semester of university tuition. I had already completed the breadth electives in a previous pass through the academic world, but if I hadn't I could have shaved off another year or so, for a savings upwards of $22,000.
I believe we should continue to expand and invest in community colleges very aggressively, and keep them very cheap, and very easy to get into.
That's what I did and it was lit. Worked at kmart for a year then pretty much paid my tuition out of savings. Stood way out in all my classes. Got transfer scholarship to my state flagship. If money isn't an issue I guess four years could be better, but it seems pretty good to use CCs.
Maybe you're opposed to using government aid which is fine; but if you had to work to pay for community college you probably could've qualified for Pell Grants that would have paid for everything since community college is so cheap.
> Maybe you're opposed to using government aid which is fine
It's also worth pointing out that Pell Grants for CC tuition often constitute less public money than you were consuming during K-12.
It's also worth pointing out that Pell Grants for CC tuition often constitute less public money than you were consuming during K-12.
Unfortunately my household had pretty high income but wasn't really available to the children due to my mother being sick and my father being pretty bad with money. But I did get a Pell Grant and a similar state grant once I aged into FAFSA independece, which meant the only thing I had to pay for my second year at our state flagship was food.
Good.
There's nothing I learned in the first two years of an extremely expensive private school that wouldn't have been sorted out living at home and going to community college.
There's nothing I learned in the first two years of an extremely expensive private school that wouldn't have been sorted out living at home and going to community college.
Would you be able to make the same connections in a community college?
I wouldn’t. I have a group of 15-20 friends, all of whom I met in the dorms in freshman year. I’m in my mid-30s and we are still close friends (reunions every other year). They have helped me immensely with life, work, friendships... I don’t see how I could have made those connections in community college, or during junior/senior year had I transferred (IME, it’s harder to make friends in later years of college, as most people already have established friendships by then).
I had a poor high school experience and barely graduated without an SAT score. To eat I had to go to work immediately. I didn't realize for several years that I could get into the local CC without an SAT score.
When I did, I started taking remedial classes, trying to rebuild what I should have learned in high school. After a couple years I entered a real major, graduated with a couple A.S. degrees and an almost 4.0. It cost something like $50/credit hour when I went. I think the entire program cost me under $5k. Today, it's about $12k. I think I still could have swung it by just adding another year.
This got me immediate entrance in the local state school where I entered as a Junior and finished up my undergraduate degree -- again while working full time. It was paid for almost entirely by grants. I think it was a little over $10 for those final two years. Today it's about double again. Harder, but again, doable.
I had to work full-time the entire time, got married in the middle, it took me almost 7 years, but at every increment I was able to use my advancing education to get radically better jobs.
Later I went back, got an M.S., but this time I had a few years of high paying tech jobs and I just wrote a check every semester. It also wasn't terribly expensive.
The CC covered all of the core courses I could have possibly wanted, and the instructors were pretty much as good as what I encountered at state school. In fact, of my professors, most of the ones who were the most dedicated to educating their students were my CC professors. When I entered University, I was incredibly prepared for the academic life there and had no problem making it through the program with another near 4.0 GPA.
If I had a second chance, I would follow this route again, even if I had money and better opportunity growing up. I also found many life-long friends at CC who were on a similar life-path and it's been enjoyable watching each other as we progress in our careers.
The stigma about CC's have to stop and the place it needs to die is in the high schools. Many kids come out of college counseling classes at high school thinking that if they don't go to an Ivy that they're basically going to fail out of life and end up dead from a cheap drug overdose. For most people, it matters approximately zero percent in their day to day work lives. I and my old CC friends routinely work with people who went to far better and more expensive schools than I did and have found plenty of workforce success.
When I did, I started taking remedial classes, trying to rebuild what I should have learned in high school. After a couple years I entered a real major, graduated with a couple A.S. degrees and an almost 4.0. It cost something like $50/credit hour when I went. I think the entire program cost me under $5k. Today, it's about $12k. I think I still could have swung it by just adding another year.
This got me immediate entrance in the local state school where I entered as a Junior and finished up my undergraduate degree -- again while working full time. It was paid for almost entirely by grants. I think it was a little over $10 for those final two years. Today it's about double again. Harder, but again, doable.
I had to work full-time the entire time, got married in the middle, it took me almost 7 years, but at every increment I was able to use my advancing education to get radically better jobs.
Later I went back, got an M.S., but this time I had a few years of high paying tech jobs and I just wrote a check every semester. It also wasn't terribly expensive.
The CC covered all of the core courses I could have possibly wanted, and the instructors were pretty much as good as what I encountered at state school. In fact, of my professors, most of the ones who were the most dedicated to educating their students were my CC professors. When I entered University, I was incredibly prepared for the academic life there and had no problem making it through the program with another near 4.0 GPA.
If I had a second chance, I would follow this route again, even if I had money and better opportunity growing up. I also found many life-long friends at CC who were on a similar life-path and it's been enjoyable watching each other as we progress in our careers.
The stigma about CC's have to stop and the place it needs to die is in the high schools. Many kids come out of college counseling classes at high school thinking that if they don't go to an Ivy that they're basically going to fail out of life and end up dead from a cheap drug overdose. For most people, it matters approximately zero percent in their day to day work lives. I and my old CC friends routinely work with people who went to far better and more expensive schools than I did and have found plenty of workforce success.
During the early part of high school, a few friends and I began attending community college night classes for subjects we got exposed to in our day classes. By the time I graduated, I was half-way through a AAS degree and considered continuing locally a no-brainer.
Ended up transferring 70 credits or so over to a four-year institution 1 year after graduating high school and managed to walk away with a BS degree earlier than my peers and with no debt. Without community college, there's no way I would have achieved this; I owe a lot to that part of the system.
For many years, I felt like an imposter because of my community college background. The irony in it all though was that for a much cheaper, often more flexible schedule, and sometimes better teachers, I walked away with a lot of the same opportunity as my peers. Naturally, my "network" wasn't filled with ivy-leaguers, but I'd later rub shoulders with them in my employment and be considered equal.
More details around hacking through education: https://medium.com/@9bplus/hacking-the-education-process-1be...
Ended up transferring 70 credits or so over to a four-year institution 1 year after graduating high school and managed to walk away with a BS degree earlier than my peers and with no debt. Without community college, there's no way I would have achieved this; I owe a lot to that part of the system.
For many years, I felt like an imposter because of my community college background. The irony in it all though was that for a much cheaper, often more flexible schedule, and sometimes better teachers, I walked away with a lot of the same opportunity as my peers. Naturally, my "network" wasn't filled with ivy-leaguers, but I'd later rub shoulders with them in my employment and be considered equal.
More details around hacking through education: https://medium.com/@9bplus/hacking-the-education-process-1be...
[deleted]
The CCs have the cost model worked out better than the universities, and can curb spending since they don't rely on public funds to support sports programs, sprawling administrations, large campuses, etc. It's about the courses and the students, and providing the most practical courses. I think it's an excellent way to deliver the basic general education and lower level courses of an undergraduate degree compared to taking them at a university because of this cost basis alone.
Rethinking how we deliver lower level courses in the university, by either providing them online or through CC seems to be part of the answer to controlling higher education costs that are spiraling out of control as states cut funding to public universities.
Rethinking how we deliver lower level courses in the university, by either providing them online or through CC seems to be part of the answer to controlling higher education costs that are spiraling out of control as states cut funding to public universities.
For any parents in this thread, some states do allow students to "graduate early" from highschool but get free college credits, in Wisconsin it was called the student option program. I got my first 12 credits in my senior year of high school
When I graduated from a far-from-top-10 CS BA program in 2002, I couldn't get the time of day from any of the top software firms. I spent 9 months throwing resume after resume down the corporate waste chute. Then I noticed that Apple was holding a recruiting event at MIT, so I crashed it. Didn't mention that I wasn't from that school. A month or so later I got the job that launched my career.
Not sure what the lesson there is. But maybe a community college grad should consider finding ways to get through the school-based recruiting filter which is all too common in tech.
Not sure what the lesson there is. But maybe a community college grad should consider finding ways to get through the school-based recruiting filter which is all too common in tech.
MOOCs have been developing en masse for the last 6-7 years. What, aside from the obvious associates degree at completion and an accelerated pathway to a bachelors degree from a 4-year program, does community college provide that MOOC micro-programs do not? It seems reasonable to assume that MOOC service providers are establishing pathways to undergraduate programs just as community colleges do. Are the value gaps narrowing?
> What, aside from the obvious associates degree at completion and an accelerated pathway to a bachelors degree from a 4-year program, does community college provide that MOOC micro-programs do not?
CCs offer 2 tracks.
Track 1: college prep. Students take a year or two of courses and then transfer to a 4 year institution.
For this track, the "trustworthy signal of competence" is by far the most important aspect of the product. So for CCs offering this track, your question is a bit ill-formed. You're basically asking "aside from the most important thing, what else is important?"
Track 2: Terminal associates degrees for students who will enter a trade immediately out of CC.
For this track, at least sometimes, MOOCs don't work as well because you need hands-on experience. Often, you also need connections to local institutions (for setting up volunteer hours and for job placement). IMO MOOCs shouldn't even try to focus on this track, at least for certain trades like nursing.
> Are the value gaps narrowing?
For track 2, it depends on the trade, but mostly no.
For track 1, MOOCs need to figure out the assessment problem and provide compelling evidence to higher ed that completing a MOOC is a strong signal of future success.
Finally, it's worth pointing out that MOOCs work well for some types of students (I wish they had been an option for me), but do not work at all for other types of students.
CCs offer 2 tracks.
Track 1: college prep. Students take a year or two of courses and then transfer to a 4 year institution.
For this track, the "trustworthy signal of competence" is by far the most important aspect of the product. So for CCs offering this track, your question is a bit ill-formed. You're basically asking "aside from the most important thing, what else is important?"
Track 2: Terminal associates degrees for students who will enter a trade immediately out of CC.
For this track, at least sometimes, MOOCs don't work as well because you need hands-on experience. Often, you also need connections to local institutions (for setting up volunteer hours and for job placement). IMO MOOCs shouldn't even try to focus on this track, at least for certain trades like nursing.
> Are the value gaps narrowing?
For track 2, it depends on the trade, but mostly no.
For track 1, MOOCs need to figure out the assessment problem and provide compelling evidence to higher ed that completing a MOOC is a strong signal of future success.
Finally, it's worth pointing out that MOOCs work well for some types of students (I wish they had been an option for me), but do not work at all for other types of students.
At a CC, you're in a class of between 10 and 30 people with immediate access to the instructor, who is usually an expert and a dedicated educator that wants to help you understand the material and will work with you in and outside of class in small groups or one on one.
In a MOOC, you're one of 10,000 students submitting questions onto a web forum and taking multiple choice tests.
In a MOOC, you're one of 10,000 students submitting questions onto a web forum and taking multiple choice tests.
Which MOOCs give you credit that transfer to a 4 year university?
The main (good) reason to go to community college is that it's a cheap way to get college credits.
I took classes at the local juco as a high school students. I met three types of people. The first were kids like me who all ended up at good schools. The second were older, actually junior college students. They were smart and worked hard. They ended up at decent schools too. The last were people didn't do well. That was either due to motivation or other factors.
The middle group was the smallest by size.
The middle group was the smallest by size.
The first semester of calculas at MIT covered the same material as three semesters of calculas I took at the community college while in high school. You could interpret this two ways: (1) some schools just go faster than others and cover more material or (2) at MIT you had to work hard to keep up at that pace. While in high school and CC you could breeze through the slower presentation.
My science and math classes were much more rigorous at my community college than they were at a major 4-year university. Yes, there are a lot of fluff courses and people at community colleges in respect to an aspiring academic and/or professional, but in general the science and mathematics courses are filled with serious people. AND SO MUCH CHEAPER.
As a capable yet ambition-less high schooler, community college saved my family tens of thousands of dollars. I do sometimes wonder if I missed something with the dorm experience but from an ROI perspective, it was stellar for me. One anecdote doesn’t mean it’s applicable for all but I’d recommend it for many circumstances
Community college gave me transfer agreement to UC Davis. I went to UCLA instead, though I think I would have happier at Davis.
Anyway, at UCLA, all the most motivated students went to community college first (the ones in the department undergrad club, the one in honors research programs, the ones who eventually got phds)
Anyway, at UCLA, all the most motivated students went to community college first (the ones in the department undergrad club, the one in honors research programs, the ones who eventually got phds)
Did the same, but went to Davis. Transfer agreements rock. Now I got my phd at Davis.
As they should be. Just finishing up my 2 year college and I'm about to transfer to a much larger (and more prestigious) state school for my BS and MS. It's turned out a whole hell of a lot cheaper using a community college than paying $23k for four semesters.
I took a summer community college class in C back in the day. Great instructor, was well worth it.
I went to community college for two years before transferring to University. Great experience. I felt the focus on teaching over research and the smaller class sizes helped me transition to University and better appreciate learning. And I saved a lot of money.
I don’t understand all this talk about “connections” made in 4 year colleges, as if that’s a good thing. Isn’t it intensely anti-meritocratic and something to be discouraged, not encouraged?
> Isn’t it intensely anti-meritocratic and something to be discouraged, not encouraged?
Life is not fair. You may as well learn to play the game as the rules actually are as apposed to what they "should" be.
Life is not fair. You may as well learn to play the game as the rules actually are as apposed to what they "should" be.
> as if that’s a good thing.
Developing a network of peers IS a good thing!
> Isn’t it intensely anti-meritocratic
I guess that depends on how yo define "merit".
The ability to build professional networks is actually a valuable skill, not just for the individual but also for the business. And the network itself is valuable.
I can think of three of reasons why a business would, on merit alone, prefer someone with demonstrated ability to build their professional network, or who is plugged into a particular professional network:
1. When it comes to hiring, "merit" does not mean "the best person"! "Merit" means "someone who can do the job and who we can convince to take the job given recruiting budget X and max comp package Y." If locating a candidate among the chafe costs more than "X", then that candidate ISN'T a meritorious candidate. No matter who good they would be at the job!
2. Businesses often recruit to access to an entire network/pipeline, not just a single engineer. This is a common pattern at lower-paying shops especially. Recruiting your Nth engineer from State U is easy because you already have recruit N-1 to give you the names of five people who would probably do well. Now, in any given year, the business could recruit zero people from State U. But then they have to rebuild their State U pipeline in subsequent years.
In other words, your network is part of the value you provide to the company! Someone with no professional network is strictly less valuable than someone with a professional network. And in some regional job markets, "Alumni of State U" is a valuable recruiting network.
3. Someone with a strong professional network has signaled that they have a modicum of skill at "winning hearts and minds". Depending on the shop, engineers who are good at building and maintaining reputation over the long term bring way more value than just the LoCs they commit during their period of employment.
4. It's also worth pointing out that someone you recruit via one of these networks might have a niche combination of skills that would be otherwise hard to discover. E.g., "oh, we're hiring a new dev to work with a new client in industry XYZ. I have an old friend who double majored in CS and ABC, which gives him the background needed to talk with folks in industry XYZ. Should I give him a call?". Again, the definition of "merit" is "we can find you with budget X and you're willing to do the work for comp package Y". NOT "you're the ideal candidate if we had X+Z recruiting budget to cast a wide net and find you"
All that said, hiring college buddies can be anti-meritocratic, for sure. Life isn't fair. Just one of the reasons colleges require freshman read Shakespeare :)
Developing a network of peers IS a good thing!
> Isn’t it intensely anti-meritocratic
I guess that depends on how yo define "merit".
The ability to build professional networks is actually a valuable skill, not just for the individual but also for the business. And the network itself is valuable.
I can think of three of reasons why a business would, on merit alone, prefer someone with demonstrated ability to build their professional network, or who is plugged into a particular professional network:
1. When it comes to hiring, "merit" does not mean "the best person"! "Merit" means "someone who can do the job and who we can convince to take the job given recruiting budget X and max comp package Y." If locating a candidate among the chafe costs more than "X", then that candidate ISN'T a meritorious candidate. No matter who good they would be at the job!
2. Businesses often recruit to access to an entire network/pipeline, not just a single engineer. This is a common pattern at lower-paying shops especially. Recruiting your Nth engineer from State U is easy because you already have recruit N-1 to give you the names of five people who would probably do well. Now, in any given year, the business could recruit zero people from State U. But then they have to rebuild their State U pipeline in subsequent years.
In other words, your network is part of the value you provide to the company! Someone with no professional network is strictly less valuable than someone with a professional network. And in some regional job markets, "Alumni of State U" is a valuable recruiting network.
3. Someone with a strong professional network has signaled that they have a modicum of skill at "winning hearts and minds". Depending on the shop, engineers who are good at building and maintaining reputation over the long term bring way more value than just the LoCs they commit during their period of employment.
4. It's also worth pointing out that someone you recruit via one of these networks might have a niche combination of skills that would be otherwise hard to discover. E.g., "oh, we're hiring a new dev to work with a new client in industry XYZ. I have an old friend who double majored in CS and ABC, which gives him the background needed to talk with folks in industry XYZ. Should I give him a call?". Again, the definition of "merit" is "we can find you with budget X and you're willing to do the work for comp package Y". NOT "you're the ideal candidate if we had X+Z recruiting budget to cast a wide net and find you"
All that said, hiring college buddies can be anti-meritocratic, for sure. Life isn't fair. Just one of the reasons colleges require freshman read Shakespeare :)
I think community colleges are a great solution, particularly for those that are pretty much the same anywhere you go. Certainly cheaper.
Its time for the country to stop watching television and thinking thats how they should be (almost everyone on television either lives an upper-middle class life, or is a terribly smart poor person). Most Americans CAN NOT afford college right now-not without going so helplessly in debt as to be a wage slave for the rest of their life (or even worse cash out their parents hard won gains to pay for their useless degree)
If you go to a four year university with no credits at all and you're not getting a full ride, you're doing it wrong.
While I support other choices, I went to MIT all years without a full scholarship and would absolutely do it that way again.
Ya. I did the same and would do the same again at UW. I have nothing against the CC approach, but there are many valid approaches.
The networking and branding opportunities at elite schools make them worth almost any price compared to other schools.
Not all of us are brilliant enough to get into MIT.
Sadly, this is something I'm reminded of every day :(
Sadly, this is something I'm reminded of every day :(
If you make students take on crippling debt to obtain an education, you’re doing it wrong.
No one has made students do anything. These are choices. Some choices cost more than others. You should pick one that you can afford and that has a future income potential.
And, there are some top quality programs that are very affordable. You can get a Masters in CS from Georgia Tech (top 10 CS program in the USA) for between 6K and 10K total.
Online, cheap and elite: https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018...
And, there are some top quality programs that are very affordable. You can get a Masters in CS from Georgia Tech (top 10 CS program in the USA) for between 6K and 10K total.
Online, cheap and elite: https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018...
The result was graduating college with a bachelor's degree 2.5 years after graduating high school. I lived at home for the the duration (rent free as long as I maintained a 3.5 GPA) so the full cost was only around $6,000.
This was in northern California (Modesto Junior College and Cal State Stanislaus) with a relatively low cost of living. I know the costs have increased since then (I went in the mid 2000's), but I assume it's still relatively affordable.