<p>"Access to college has been the driving force in federal higher education policy for decades. But the Obama administration is pushing a fundamental agenda shift that aggressively brings a new question into the debate: What are people getting for their money?</p>
<p>Students with loans are graduating on average with more than $25,000 in debt. The federal government pours $140 billion annually into federal grants and loans. Unemployment remains high, yet there are projected shortages in many industries with some high-tech companies already complaining about a lack of highly trained workers.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, literacy among college students has declined in the last decade, according to a commission convened during the George W. Bush administration that said American higher education has become increasingly risk-averse, at times self-satisfied, and unduly expensive. About 40 percent of college students at four-year schools arent graduating, and in two-year programs, only about 40 percent of students graduate or transfer, according to the policy and analysis group College Measures.</p>
<p>College drop-outs are expensive, and not just for the individual. About a fifth of full-time students who enroll at a community college do not return for a second year, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually, according to an analysis released last fall by the American Institutes for Research.</p>
<p>Theres been a growing debate over whether post-secondary schools should be more transparent about the cost of an education and the success of graduates. President Barack Obama has weighed in with a strong 'yes.'" ...</p>
<p>shocker, when you give 18 year olds “free” money (loans) they go to college even if they shouldn’t and drive up costs for everyone. federal government policies obviously contribute significantly to this.</p>
<p>Haha. Duncan must rue the day he accepted the task of developing policies for someone who believes governing is 90 percent campaigning and ten percent hitting golf balls. </p>
<p>The report, if one can qualify it as such, is all over the place. Just as Obama views on education. Shilling for votes is different from really addressing the issues than happen to be the domain of the … federal government. </p>
<p>There is a lot that should and could be done about higher education. But done comes from doing.</p>
<p>Why shouldn’t they? Because they tend to be poor?</p>
<p>And no, college dropouts are NOT expensive. In fact, studies indicate that the difference in lifetime income between a high school graduate and one having “some college” (hence dropout) is greater percentagewise than that between “some college” and “graduate”. </p>
<p>(But the real cost lies in the fact that the majority of students who don’t return for a second year can’t because they can’t afford it, loans or not.)</p>
<p>“Some college” includes dropouts, but also includes students attending college (usually the local community college) for some specific courses for some job or career certification, but not leading to an associates or bachelor’s degree.</p>
<p>Correct. And I’d call that a success story. Here’s what the article said:</p>
<p>“About a fifth of full-time students who enroll at a community college do not return for a second year, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually, according to an analysis released last fall by the American Institutes for Research.”</p>
<p>While it is a waste if a student attends college and drops out or fails before completing a meaningful set of courses, a student who attends community college for a year and does not return has not necessarily dropped out or failed, although s/he may never graduate with an associates or bachelor’s degree. S/he may have completed a one year set of courses needed for some certificate or other requirement for some job or career for which s/he is now able to get a job in.</p>
<p>Not every meaningful educational attainment beyond high school involves a two or four year degree. To determine the amount of resources “wasted” on dropouts, one needs to know the true dropout count (of those who enrolled but fail to complete a meaningful set of courses), which is smaller than the number of students who enroll but do not complete an associates or bachelor’s degree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But they are not true dropouts as you described in post #4.</p>
<p>Duncan must rue the day he accepted the task of developing policies for someone who believes governing is 90 percent campaigning and ten percent hitting golf balls. </p>
<p>=============</p>
<p>^
this</p>
<p>============</p>
<p>“Shilling for votes is different from really making decisions…” </p>
<p>At the city college (2 year junior college) in the town where I live, many students take a class or two because they don’t know what to do with their lives, and the vast majority never graduate. The classes are dirt cheap, and any kid can afford to go if they want to. Sometimes, I think if a student has to pay a fair amount of money to receive an education, he/she will appreciate it more and take it more seriously. If you get something for nothing, you tend not to appreciate or value it. I do think it is valid to take a look at what this is costing the taxpayer to subsidize kids who are not taking advantage of the publicly-funded education they are receiving.</p>
<p>^^At the juco near us many seniors take classes for fun. Recently, there was an uproar recently in Santa Barbara (that would be wealthy SB) from its seniors because the local juco wanted gonna cap the number of times a “student” could take a class, and increase rates after xx times. (Seniors were repeating conversational French, for example, multiple times. No college credit desired/needed, just as no progress towards a degree. The courses were being taken just for personal enrichment. But it IS important for our broke state to subsidize the courses! hehe)</p>
<p>Some have commented that community college courses are overfilled partly because of students repeating courses after late drops, or trying to raise an initially earned C or B grade.</p>
<p>Seems like a sensible policy would be to require that students repeating a course (including those which they dropped late enough that another student could not take their place) to sign up for the waiting list, so that first timers could get first pick of the available courses.</p>
<p>Some have commented that community college courses are overfilled partly because of students repeating courses after late drops, or trying to raise an initially earned C or B grade.</p>
<h1>Seems like a sensible policy would be to require that students repeating a course (including those which they dropped late enough that another student could not take their place) to sign up for the waiting list, so that first timers could get first pick of the available courses.</h1>
<p>Good idea. And maybe those who are wanting to repeat a class should have to pay a higher fee. Why should tax-payers have to fully supplement a do-over?</p>
<p>“What the article seems to be saying is that financial aid money goes to people who will never graduate, which is pointless and costly.”</p>
<p>Yes, that’s what it says, and the article is wrong. The data on that is clear. “Some college” v. high school graduate is worth more than “graduate” v. “some college”.</p>
<p>The problem with providing a college education for more students is that it does not take into account the vast numbers of kids who are academically ill-prepared for higher education. Obama should provide real solutions for the massive problems we are experiencing with K-12 education in our country. It would take political courage and possibly alienating his financial supporters.</p>
<p>somehow I miss the connections in the article, xiggi. Not sure how the conclusion jives with the facts, i.e., what needs “drastic revamping” if the kids are unprepared for college level work on Day 1 of college?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well sure, it’s easier to graduate from college when one is taking college-level classes on Day 1.</p>
<p>That’s been our strategy - get kids interested from an early age in areas that have a demand in the current economy. This way they have good jobs or job prospects right out of college, and can plan the next phase of their career, which may or may not be as vocational, on their own terms.</p>
<p>We fully recognized that there are those who get a non-vocational education and do well through their other talents not directly related to their coursework. More power to them, I say, and less competition for my kids.</p>