Obama to propose 2 free years of community college

Community colleges must also adopt “promising and evidence-based institutional reforms” to improve student outcomes.

originally posted by: xuenchen

Oh wait for it, like the improvements they made to all the health care plans with Obamacare?
They will govern the curriculum too?

And will there be another 21 pages added to the instuctions of tax returns similar to Obamacare?

a reply to: xuenchen

How does that NOT indicate utilizing the Student/Work programs that are already in place, rather than forcing students to work in FEMA camps. as the poster that I originally responded to suggested?

The president’s proposal would make two years of community college free for students of any age with a C+ average who attend school at least half-time and who are making “steady progress” toward their degree.

If you're referring to this ^^^ that has always been the minimum requirement for grants, loans, Student/Work and athletic scholarship programs.

a reply to: burntheships



I guess they can name this new miracle plan the "Affordable College Act".

But they need to define what "Drop-out Insurance" would be.

The IRS will collect "Flunk-out Fines" of $100 for the first year so they can recover the lost tuition.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: burntheships



I guess they can name this new miracle plan the "Affordable College Act".

Well, that does ring a bell.

But they need to define what "Drop-out Insurance" would be.

Ooohhhh....maybe if they dont make a C grade they have to pay that "free"
tuition back to the Feds and the State?

The IRS will collect "Flunk-out Fines" of $100 for the first year so they can recover the lost tuition.

Hey, if you like your classes, you can keep your classes.
And...just as long as you cut a C.
( if not.... the IRS will come calling )

Devious plans in the making .....

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

It's a shame, really. This should have been tackled 6 years ago when the money was instead being wasted on continuation of wars for other people's supposed freedoms and corporate bailouts... now the country is just too damn broke for this to realistically be in the books.

While I agree with that part of your comment (I extracted the rest), the country in my opinion should never be in a situation where we can't educate our children due to finances...ever, that's petty politics! IMO, we should all collectively and financially, suck it up if we want to ever be back on top IMVHO. However, I do agree with you.

By the way, I thought Junior College or a Community College was only a two year deal anyway? Maybe old, but that's what I thought. JC (Junior College as I know it) was supposed to be a stepping stone to a university or college if you were lacking an acceptable GPA or needed more credits that were transferrable to a University. Hell, I could've just kept my daughters in JC until they graduated and saved about $75K a piece (that's not including the student loans they took out)!

What Obama and the Dept. of Education IMVHO needs to do, is stop charging these kids ridiculous interest rates for their student loans (some as high as 7.9% depending on when you started college). I think that would certainly help our nation bounce back from a huge student loan deficit. I can afford the interest rates on my Direct Parent Plus Loans, but my kids can't afford the interest rates. Hell, they graduate with debt and no job...WTH? Astronomical student debt indeed.

I have one daughter at Cal State Fresno as a resident and I have another daughter out in Philly at Temple University as a non resident. By the time the loans, grants and scholarships roll in for my Philly student, we're paying less than my daughter who attends school here in Cali as a resident. Something is certainly screwed up. Now, we have that damed Janet Napolitano (or however you spell her name) former DHS director running Cali's UC system. She just taxed the hell out of our kids saying she has to raise tuition over 25% over the next 5 years to compensate for the retirement fund. This is following the last 15-20% raise in tuition for nothing. Meanwhile, teachers are still furloughed in both UC and CalState systems and many class schedules are being erased as soon as kids make their schedules (happened to my CalState daughter). She had to attend college for an extra year because of furloughs. So let me get this right, my family/kid has to pay more for school, gets less and doesn't graduate on time, but you're raising tuition? What for? Oh yeah, I forgot about the huge amounts of money you all get from the international students. Forget our kids huh? It's all a sham anyway! Wait a freaking minute "Janet", you mean to tell me that my child has to pay some educator fees for an education they haven't received because you're running short on funds? I'm incredibly pissed. I knew she was bad news when she got the job.

I've got one more kid to send off to college. My only son and he's a junior in high school. He's going to Puget Sound...great program and great tuition even for a non resident. The California education system has hit rock bottom and I want no part of it! It's horrible, absolutely horrible. Once number one in the world...now dam near next to last in the nation. It SUCKS!

Great post and good info


Thank YOU,
TPE

Only in America could we find people who don't see the benefit of an educated youth. Sigh.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Student loan debt is $1.2trillion as it stands, with a good percentage that are either in default, late or will default. This sounds like a wonderful idea.

Oh here's a link How The $1.2 Trillion College Debt Crisis Is Crippling Students, Parents And The Economy

originally posted by: TheArrow
This is good.

Couple that with making student loan repayments tax deductible and we could really be on to something here.

Absolutely agree on the student loan issue. It's interesting to note, if you pay for school out of pocket you get a tax write-off... but if you borrow the money you don't. That's horsecrap and represents a truly regressive taxation policy.

originally posted by: Hefficide

Only in America could we find people who don't see the benefit of an educated youth. Sigh.

Heff, I absolutely see the benefit... but man I don't see how this is going to get paid for nor do I see the current system working well enough to warrant extending it. This is a huge problem:
campusreform.org...

The average U.S. college freshman reads at a seventh grade level, according to an educational assessment report.

“We are spending billions of dollars trying to send students to college and maintain them there when, on average, they read at about the grade 6 or 7 level, according to Renaissance Learning’s latest report on what American students in grades 9-12 read, whether assigned or chosen,” education expert Dr. Sandra Stotsky told Breitbart Texas.

This is not progress and the solution isn't kicking the can (representing our nation's students) down the road a bit further in hopes of getting them somewhere. Fix the broken rungs at the bottom of the ladder before building new rungs at the top! IF we lived in a country where the average high school graduate was actively seeking advanced learning and job opportunities that require degrees, then I absolutely support scholarships, grants, and even loans to get that student's filled to the brim. The reality is we have 18 year olds going after liberal arts degrees that are about as likely to equal workplace success as the average college football player is to make the NFL, and they're tens of thousands of dollars in debt when they graduate! That's a broken system and adding tax payer funded associate degrees to the mix is not the answer.

I would also like to introduce a college level math/business/engineering theory into this as a counterpoint to what you're saying. The cost-benefit ratio...
en.wikipedia.org...

BCR = Discounted value of incremental benefits ÷ Discounted value of incremental costs

Accept all projects with a BCR greater than 1, when costs and benefits are discounted at the opportunity cost of capital.

This is something both liberals and conservatives tend to glass right over these days and that is why we're an economically bankrupt, insolvent nation... I'd challenge anyone who supports this idea fully, tax-payer funded community college, to examine this:
education.seattlepi.com...

People with associate degrees usually make more money than people who only have a diploma. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in 2012 that high school graduates have median weekly earnings of $652. People with associate degrees have median earnings of $785. This is partially because an associate degree opens up a wider range of career options.

So baseline difference is $133
www.timesunion.com...

The study by the Center for an Urban Future, a Manhattan-based think tank that focuses on economic issues, found 35 percent of the students who enroll in community college graduate with an associate or bachelor's degree in six years.

35% of $133 is $46.55

Let's then assume an effective tax rate of 13%, which is pretty close to what a single earner making $41,000 a year pays in effective rate... no discounts for EIC or child credits, write-offs, etc applied (we'll keep this estimate artificially high).
13% of $46.55 equals $6.05 per week paid back to the government, or $315 per year.

The federal government borrows money at an interest rate of roughly 2%, and they would be borrowing 75% of that annual estimated average cost of $3,800 x 2 years: $7,200. So 75% of $7,200 is $5,400. Borrowed on a 20 year treasury bond at 2%, that equals a total expenditure of $8,053. This doesn't even account for the $3,600 average per student the states would have to borrow for the 2 year commitment because state interest rates are way too variable and dependent on each state's situation. BUT just to get a benefit/cost ratio greater than 1 on the federal investment alone would require the person working 26 years...

This is a significantly dumbed-down model here, too. It doesn't take into account the lost money from the student attending another 2 years of school versus (presumably) working full time, there is no cost of money multiplier applied to either side of the model (I'll give you a hint, money in hand today is worth more than money in-hand in 26 years.), plus it uses a fairly pie-in-the sky vision of average incomes. Bottom line, it doesn't balance out and the benefits would be far greater concentrated on education before college, leaving college to those who actually *should* go to college rather than those who just want to piss around for 2 more years and eventually hit the workforce with a degree in art history or communications.

On the surface it seems like a good thing. But then when you open your eyes, prettymuch every job that worthless piece of paper you get from a community college used to help you get, is now outsourced to china or india.

When only the rich could afford to finish primary school, instead of getting a job to help support the family, a high school diploma was valued. Now the only thing that gets you is a job flipping burgers. College other than some high priced ivy league or specialty school is already headed that way, if it was "free", that would be the end of that. You would need minimum 6 years of college for that education to be valued. When things are abundant, they become worthless in most people's eyes.

originally posted by: TKDRL
On the surface it seems like a good thing. But then when you open your eyes, prettymuch every job that worthless piece of paper you get from a community college used to help you get, is now outsourced to china or india.

When only the rich could afford to finish primary school, instead of getting a job to help support the family, a high school diploma was valued. Now the only thing that gets you is a job flipping burgers. College other than some high priced ivy league or specialty school is already headed that way, if it was "free", that would be the end of that. You would need minimum 6 years of college for that education to be valued. When things are abundant, they become worthless in most people's eyes.

Your view of the job market is much grimmer than reality.

There are plenty of jobs a person can get with no degree. There are plenty of very good jobs a person can get if they're persuasive, clean-cut, intelligent, well-spoken, reliable, and willing to work hard.

I was an automotive finance manager for a couple years. The vast majority of people in that field do not have a college degree. The average earnings in this area for that position are over $150,000. I personally know 4 finance managers who made close to $300,000 last year.

Most sales jobs don't require a degree but they do require hard work. Outside of sales, there are a lot of opportunities in retail, the service industry, etc. that do not involve "flipping burgers."

a reply to: burdman30ott6
Free..................that's funny!!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

the local school districts may be strapped, but here in Michigan, our 4year colleges are raking in HUGE bucks from the state

Oh goody two years of brainwashing by the state at the publics expense .. this will be as big of a fiasco as obummacare.. the least obumma could do is send the public flowers after how much he screws them..

originally posted by: Answer
Great idea!

Let's do 4 things to fund this:

1) Crack down on people who are receiving disability checks/social security/welfare while still working. It's sickening how many people are milking the government tit while still working.

2) Require all welfare recipients that aren't disabled to attend the free 2 years of college. If they can't/won't/don't earn at least a 2.5 GPA, they're off welfare.

3) Mandatory drug and alcohol testing for welfare recipients. If they fail 2 tests, they're off welfare. If you have enough money for drugs and booze, you're not so bad off that taxpayers should be supporting you.

4) Legalize Marijuana and tax it to help pay for the 2 years of free education.

You've got my vote on that!!!

Everything in the world is on a scale. If you change something on one side, it affects something on the other side. If you give something here, something is taken there and if you do good in one situation, it causes bad in another. That is life and it almost always works that way...if you are willing to dig deep enough.

Like most politicians, they tell you ONLY about the good something will do, and white-wash or ignore the bad. But don't be fooled...there is always a negative side to a good, and a positive side to a bad. A balanced scale.

Obama? He doesn't give a crap about any negatives so long as it makes HIM look good. Hell...he doesn't even care that this may help some people. That is just a byproduct of him helping himself.

And how many on this program will just go on to easy and useless liberal arts degree and other Micky mouse BS degrees that wont contribute anything?

If its was for ONLY STEM degree in useful and high qualified agrees that do contribute to society I would be sympathetic as that would add valuable skills


Paying someone to do a degree in Middle Eastern art or Political study's is a waste of time and money in my opinion.

I will also add University should be for the brightest people.

Sending millions of average people to uni to get a McDegree when they should be learning a trade or vocation is counter intuitive.

University should be for the future Doctors, Scientists, engineers, Historians , Lawyers and teachers not for your arty fartys new age air brain that cant be bothered to get a real job.

I supports burserys to help the brightest kids in poor areas get out and do REAL degrees.

I don't support a free for all approach that allows any Muppet to get a free degree in (insert useless degree here).

To put it another way there is value for money and advantage to the tax payer to help a high achieving bright kid from the ghetto break out and become a doctor

There is no advantage or value for money to send a average kid from the same Ghetto to go do a degree in new age philosophy.

originally posted by: Answer

3) Mandatory drug and alcohol testing for welfare recipients. If they fail 2 tests, they're off welfare. If you have enough money for drugs and booze, you're not so bad off that taxpayers should be supporting you.

This is a HUUUUUGE waste of money. Every time a state implements one of these requirements, it ends up costing the state a bunch of money and they don't find very many drug users.

Why Drug Testing Welfare Recipients Is a Waste of Taxpayer Money

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ugh... "Free" community college isn't so. Nothing is free. And when the government gets involved the cost ALWAYS goes up. So while the government paying for community college would be around $34 billion a year right now. In about five years that number will likely have quadrupled.