<p>Coolweather, the article is not about "money in US college education". It is about politics. Frequent references to "the right wing" and "interests of capitalists" make that pretty clear. If you failed to pick up on that, it is your analysis that is naive, in my opinion.</p>
<p>To expand on Marite's point, if I may: not only do more American students attend college than in France or elsewhere, but social mobility remains higher in the U.S than in France, and a large contributor to that mobility is our system of higher education. Still.</p>
<p>Both of my grandfathers left France because they concluded that being born poor in France guaranteed dying poor in France. The last time I checked, there are still a lot of people trying to get into the U.S.; I know a lot who have come here expressly for the purpose of obtaining higher education at our relatively accessible and high-quality public universities.</p>
<p>of course, the author ignores the fact that the UC system purposely recruits and admits low income kids (each campus has ~33% Pell Grantees), and the fact that the UC system doles out tons of finaid to these kids, in an almost Robin Hood style education (as mini as suggested)</p>
<p>However, such facts would render the article worthless.</p>
<p>At one time, when a college degree was an entre to a good job, access to college education contributed to social mobility in this country. However, with the disappearance of well-paying blue collar jobs, the advent of mass public education has become in some ways a barrier to social mobility. Employers are able to use a college degree as a screening device for may jobs that do not require the skills taught in college. As a result, the (disproportionately poor) part of the population without degrees are denied access to the entry-level white collar jobs that in the past played an important role in providing mobility. social mobility.</p>
<p>Worsening inequality.....hmmmmmm.</p>
<p>In 2006, Harvard economist Philip Aghion published an interesting paper stating that one possible reason the US economy outpaces the EU economy is because the US invests 3% of it's GDP in tertiary education. The EU collectively invests 1.25%--and isn't interest in investing more.</p>
<p>Aghion didn't mention a thing about worsening investment--though I am not sure about worsening equality. With merit aid, it seems that nearly every good student has excellent opportunities. In my quest to help students gets money to go to college, I've been astounded by the cash out there.</p>
<p>mini would have to be the CC authority on that.</p>
<p>Although the article is not about the French university system, it expects of its readers, in Le Monde diplomatique, to make comparisons with their own, namely the French system. Here is a link to an article about French university education by someone who IS in a position to make such comparisons, explicitly. Not much has changed since 2003 when the article was written. We all know that French rhetoric is revolutionary but French behavior is profoundly conservative. Plus ca change, plus c'est la m</p>
<p>Today I discussed Thomas Kuhn and paradigm shifts in preparation for studying Darwin. The class of fifteen, who sit around a seminar table, are reading THE VOYAGE OF THE BEAGLE. Another class of twenty discussed Freud and his influence on both literature and literary criticism. Where were we? Community college with an annual tuition of $3K.</p>
<p>
[quote]
oday I discussed Thomas Kuhn and paradigm shifts in preparation for a studying Darwin. The class of fifteen who sit around a seminar table are reading THE VOYAGE OF THE BEAGLE. Another class of twenty discussed Freud and his influence on both literature and literary criticism. Where were we? Community college with an annual tuition of $3K per year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Our local CC is reputed to be one of the best in the state. The faculty is, by and large, excellent. The admins are smart, creative, dedicated educators. Alas, by my estimate, about 3% of the students have the basic skills (reading, writing, thinking) and the will to tackle such tasks in a meaningful way. I just sat through a freshman poli sci class taught by an erudite and articulate prof who works very hard to reach these kids. Mmmmm ... maybe 3%.</p>
<p>Mythmom said they have a wonderful community college with an annual tuition of $3K. However, don't expect any praise from Le Mond. Le Mond would undoubtedly prefer the “more democratic” community college system in Calif, which charges $20 per credit hour (been $11, then $26, now there is a movement to push it down to $15.)</p>
<p>Of course, like some of the non-elite universities in France, cheaper resulted in lower quality. For some of the problems in the system see the article “is community college tuition in Calif too low?”
<a href="http://www.communitycollegetimes.com/article.cfm?TopicId=7&ArticleId=423%5B/url%5D">http://www.communitycollegetimes.com/article.cfm?TopicId=7&ArticleId=423</a></p>
<p>The Calif community colleges are heavy dependent on part time instructors, some of them really don't know their material. You really need to have the ratemyprofessors website next to you when you pick your classes. It is better for the community college to raise the fee a little, get more full time instructors, and provide more support for the students.</p>
<p>The CC in Santa Barbara is not especially heavy on part-timers. They've been faring better since they got themselves unionized. I certainly agree that students need to be careful consumers -- I'd like to see carefully compiled end-of-semester faculty assessments available, rather than just the chaotic ratemyprofessors site -- but I don't think the adjuncts, overall, are weak on the material. If economics are to blame, it's because warm bodies equal needed state funding, and many of those warm bodies don't contribute to the college's mission. A college with open enrollment and a beer-and-beach culture isn't going to soar.</p>
<p>I think it's clear that this article discusses issues of class and tries to attack American education where it should hurt: in its increasing elitism which contradicts American ideas of democracy. However, sadly I think most Americans are very comfortable with elitism provided they are convinced that they can muscle their way into this elite, whether this conviction is realistic or not.</p>
<p>I have to say that my students, although they had never before heard the word paradigm, did a wonderful job with the concept when the word was explained to them. Discussion was lively and intelligent. Whether or not they will be able to write about their ideas remains to be seen. However, I have taught this class twice before, and the writing has been surprisingly good.</p>
<p>I agree mythmom -- the article points to the growing disparity between elite, highly expensive schools (HYP) and the increasingly impoverished publics which have no choice but to constantly raise tuition. As marite and others on cc have pointed out -- the fact that HYP charge $200,000 for a bachelor's isn't the problem. The problem for us as a society is the fact that state schools that traditionally served the middle class are approaching the $100,000 levels -- this, at a time when middle class salaries are stagnant at best. </p>
<p>One final observation about France's Grande Ecoles: it appears to me that true meritocracy -- rather than wealth -- is their real admissions criteria. Admission is strictly on how well you do on a rigorous set of entrance exams many of which require post-high-school preparation. (The daughter of Princess Caroline of Monaco did not get into Ecole Normale this year despite taking the prep courses and having earned a tres bien on her bac exam.) This of course is quite unlike the Ivy League, which often takes less-than-stellar rich kids, our President being a prime example.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the increasingly impoverished publics which have no choice but to constantly raise tuition.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Impoverished, my foot.</p>
<p>In 1970 I started college at our state "flagship" public university. At that time, tuition for state residents was quite low, but there was no need-based financial aid to speak of. Residence halls were adequate, in most cases, but barely. There was a dearth of parking lots, so freshman were not allowed to bring autos, and everybody else was discouraged from doing so. Dorm residents had exactly no choice about the food they ate, and cafeteria hours were extremely limited. I missed many of the meals I paid for (there was only one "meal plan", and it was just part of the room and board package), because I had 7:50 am classes five days a week, and by the time I had a class break, the cafeteria was closed. Needless to say, there was no such thing as a computer center, and there were absolutely no tutoring services for anyone other than athletes. There was no gym for general use (although there was a pool). The few faculty I visited in their homes lived near campus in modest, but nice enough, houses.</p>
<p>Today most of the dorms provide modern, air-conditioned, suite-style housing with semi-private baths, phone connections in every room, ethernet hook-ups for computers and marvelous common lounges with kitchen facilities. Freshman can and do bring cars, as the campus has purchased a lot of adjoining lots for parking. The dining options are incredible; there is no such thing as a "cafeteria", and students choose from among a myriad of meal plans and ethnic food stations. The gym is a PALACE; I have never seen a private club that compares. There are two new pools. There are computer labs scattered around campus, staffed by professionals as well as student workers. An elaborate tutoring building offers free services to all first-generation students (and boy could I have used that, given that my parents ended their schooling at eighth grade), the campus grounds are landscaped like gardens, some of the new buildings are architectural jewels, dangerous streets have been turned into very nice pedestrian stroll-ways, faculty live in very nice houses and are generally well compensated relative to the townies. Class size is generally smaller, although not always. </p>
<p>Need I point out that the sticker price tuition is much higher? On the other hand, need-based aid is available for many students, and there are several merit scholarship plans that start at ACT scores of 28, lower in special cases. </p>
<p>Facilities are far nicer, and services more plentiful. Yes, it costs some people more to go to this public university--but it costs students like the one I was a lot less because of need-based aid and more automatic merit awards. I do not hesitate to assert that there is a larger percentage of working-class and poor kids here now than three decades ago. Furthermore, my observations over the last several decades, at various public universities across the U.S, and one private one, have confirmed the old rule that one treats with greater respect that item that was costly than one that was inexpensive (to the immediate consumer). In other words, I think today's students work harder at the business of getting an education than many of my contemporaries did. </p>
<p>The real crisis is American education, and the real shame of America, is our K-12 system, especially as it plays out in large urban areas, not our higher education system. The author chooses to attack higher ed, because it is not wholly controlled by government, but it nonetheless works. That is anathema to intellectuals of a certain stripe.</p>
<p>marite:
Post #20
"Selectivity does not increase the quality of the higher education sector as a whole, but ensures that nearly unlimited resources flow to a small elite, an informal US version of the French grandes </p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't you see the abstract printed in bold face at the beginning of the article?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, coolweather, I saw the abstract. What I didn't see was the evidence to support the thesis.</p>
<p>I've read a lot of abstracts that fall under the category "false advertising". The article was a polemic, nothing more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"The US GI bill gave a whole generation free tertiary education – and the generation after that, which came of age in the 1960s, also benefited from free or cheap admission to colleges that stood in opposition to the system.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I came of age in the 1960s. (And what a time it was.) I attended college with the goal of becoming a PART of the system, i.e. a part that did something other than manual labor and bar tending. I had no desire, and no need, to go out of my way to stand in "opposition to the system".</p>
<p>Phrases of that sort are what help a reader identify a polemic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And look at the high level financial-aid officers in both private and public colleges get caught or investigated recently because they made deals with bankers to trap students in college loan debt. I hope you don't say I am naive about this.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>coolweather, I am sorry to have insulted you with the "naive" comment. </p>
<p>However, I don't see how the issue of unscrupulous bankers and loan sharks fits in here. I never recommend large loans to prospective college students. That is just me; I am risk averse, and I hate paying interest. Unlike the author of the article being discussed, I don't think a student's chances at social mobility are devastated if the choice is made to attend a school she/he can afford.</p>
<p>To support midmo: I attended a state school that is not a flagship and majored in a department that was not particularly well regarded around the time midmo describes. I was lucky enough to find mentors and did well. I received offers for graduate school at very elite universities, including Columbia (attended by my friend who graduated from Princeton the same year I graduated.)</p>
<p>Because of circumstances too personal to be relevant to this discussion, I earned by PhD at the same rather bland school. My dissertation received a major national award, and I hold the same position as my friend who attended Princeton and Columbia. </p>
<p>Did I miss out on interesting opportunities? Without a doubt. However, I graduated debt free after earning a PhD. I worked as a TA all the years I attended graduate school and actually saved money and bought a house with my earnings. My friend lives in the same town as I and had to borrow money from his mother to buy a house whose sticker price was lower than mine.</p>
<p>There were jobs I was barred from: teaching at the elites would have been difficult to negotiate without a more prestigious resume. However, I can't ignore the fact that I am not overly ambitious, and the publish or perish culture of many departments did not appeal to me. I think my character limited my mobility more than my background. BTW I think I received a stellar education in my discipline; I double majored, and because of the connections I made as an undergraduate and continued as a graduate student, I can teach at the college level in two different disciplines. This cross pollination is a hallmark of my teaching style and something a bit unusual I can offer my students.</p>
<p>Embedded in Mythmon's post is a very important point. People who do well as undergraduates at publics (particularly flagship state universities) have access to elite graduate programs, and thus ultimately most of the same opportunities as those who attend elite private undergraduate school. Moreover, even after graduate education, it is often only the elite of the elites who have access to opportunities not available to those in nonelite graduate programs.</p>
<p>Coolweather:</p>
<p>YOU should not truncate quotes. Especially quotes by the author of the article under discussion by a poster. </p>
<p>My entire post:</p>
<hr>
<p>why even discuss French education? Could it be because the article was published in Le Monde Diplomatique, albeit in English and also that it made a direct reference to the Grandes Ecoles--which are indeed the French equivalents of the most selective schools in the US but hardly representative of the French system of higher education any more than HYPSM are representative of American higher education.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
The largest fundraising campaigns are at the universities that already have the most. Selectivity does not increase the quality of the higher education sector as a whole, but ensures that nearly unlimited resources flow to a small elite, an informal US version of the French grandes </p>