The biggest topic/request on degreeinfo may be the search for low cost education. The ultimate low cost is free.
Where I live, we've taken a giant step backwards. When my sons went to college in the early 90s, it was nearly free, for them at least. With Provincial grants, one son graduated with student debt of about two hundred dollars, the other with $550 or so. Not long after, those grants were mostly replaced with loans... In some ways, at least, the "good old days" - were. J.
All you business/economics geeks will have to check me on this but there are some inevitable consequences to this idea, right? As price goes to zero interest and applications increase. The capacity of any given school is finite and so the school has to choose: Limit admissions by raising admissions standards or risk deteriorating quality by allowing ballooning enrollments. Each path carries its pros and cons.
There is no free lunch. The cost is just transferred from the students to the taxpayers. Someone still has to pay.
I'm not an expert in economics, but there are several things I can point out. Poorer students tend to start at community colleges more often. These students usually already qualify for the Pell Grant and state grants. I don't know how expensive community colleges in Oregon are, but the average cost of CCs nationwide is around $3,000. The maximum Pell Grant award is around $5,700 currently. Because this law only applies to people who have recently graduated from high school with at least a 2.5 GPA, I see only two main types of students who could possibly increase attendance substantially. The first group is middle class students who don't qualify for much aid, but want to save money. I have a feeling they will still choose to go to a 4-year school most of the time. The second group would be economically disadvantaged students who weren't planning on going to college because they weren't aware of the financial aid options available to them. Once these students fill out the FAFSA and get their award letters, it will be seen that they can already practically attend for free. It looks like Oregon has already crunched the numbers. They are expecting to assist 4,000-6,000 students, and they are only setting aside $10 million.
I am an accountant not an economist. Anyway, you made some valid points, however, I think you can reverse your points and still be valid. There are many positive benefits to society just by being educated / more educated. Higher productivity, increase GDP, increase tax base, increase tax revenue, higher employment, better health, higher, disposable income, less state defendant, increase competitiveness and competitive advantage, fewer crimes, more innovations etc. A recent study in the USA found that for every one dollar spent in the heads start the roi was seven dollars. The governor may have believe that the benefits of free education are greater than its cost which is a very reasonable assumption. Economists/ politicians talk all the time about expanding pie, but is expensive doing it? To expand the pie, free education a known-unknown may just put us right of the productivity frontier's constraints .
Well, Like any area there is a lot of diversity in the quality of education. The question could refer to two different categories: Full degree online Full degree offline but today many people wants to learn online courses. These courses are flexible in nature gives the learner a chance to work while they study thereby allowing them to gather valuable work experience.
funny you should mention free community college- I've spent the past 6 months researching it to death. There are LOTS of geographic areas that give residents of the community free CC tuition. Of course it's not one size fits all, but why is that the goal? It's an option that exists for those savvy enough to take advantage of it. I live in a state where high school students get free CC tuition and when this has come up in conversation, about 50% of the time the local I'm talking to doesn't even know about it. There isn't a lot of marketing, and maybe there should be? I think entry through a CC is the smartest plan most of the time.
As sanantone has pointed out, community colleges were already "free" for students coming from low income households. And, as Kizmet points out, there is a supply and demand issue. I am reminded of the community college back in Wilkes-Barre (Luzerne County Community College, though the school is actually located in nearby Nanticoke, PA). They have a nursing program. And the nursing program was always in pretty high demand due to the decent starting salaries for RNs. The result was that, unlike most CC programs, you cannot just go and "sign up" for the program. You have to apply. And you have to remain competitive to score a seat in individual classes. It's very possible that you can be admitted to the program and then not be allowed to register for a specific course that is only offered during say, the spring semester, thus pushing your graduation further and further away. My former lab partner in high school spent 4 1/2 years earning an A.A.S. because of this. She would later lament that she would have been better off earning her LPN and then enrolling in the LPN to BSN program at the University of Scranton. Demand goes up and supply has to find a way to meet demand. However, at this very same school, you had almost no problem enrolling in the general A.A. program or a variety of other programs. So the promise of "free" education will certainly entice some to the community college. But I don't think it will fill their hallowed halls to the brim. Even if community college wasn't "free" for you it was always a cheaper option than a four year college (at least, in good ol' Wilkes-Barre, PA). And the CC had articulation agreements with Kings, Wilkes, Penn State and Misericordia so you had little to fear in terms of transfer. Yet, many people did not. Why? Some of it was snobbiness. I had classmates who felt that no serious student would ever set foot in a CC. I had other classmates who earned their associates, transferred and excelled. Still others went to the CC and puttered around until eventually dropping out and getting jobs that didn't require degrees. Part of the issue is that Community Colleges have the misfortune of all being lumped together despite being very independent and diverse. There's a community college near Ithaca, NY that has a pretty solid culinary program. The school owns a very nice restaurant near the city center where they train their students. They are also fairly well known for their wine program. It also has articulation agreements with SUNY Delhi to provide a direct pathway to a bachelors. Luzerne County Community College was often referred to as "Loser (a play on the pronunciation of "Luzerne") College and was placed on probation by its accreditor in 2011. Do the schools really and truly compare? Were they not "community colleges" we would never really think to place them in the same category. We acknowledge that not all private or public universities are of the same quality. We would never lump Wilkes University and Harvard together just because they are both private, four year colleges with professional schools. But community colleges we have no problem throwing together. These differences lead to different cultures surrounding these schools. In Wilkes-Barre, LCCC had the reputation of a place to pick up some cheap credits or a place to try to redeem yourself after a series of bad life decisions. I do not mean to demean those who attended the place. But this was the attitude of guidance counselors and teachers. After all, if you live in Wilkes-Barre there are four degree granting institutions right in your back yard. LCCC, off in pot-hole infested Nanticoke, doesn't seem like an alternative. To LCCC's credit, they had (back then at least) a pretty solid truck driving school that was competitively priced against the for-profit truck driving academies in the area and I heard good things about their automotive and diesel repair programs as well. In Upstate New York the universities are a bit more scattered. And some of the CCs offer programs that are unavailable at four year colleges. Some CCs made a name for themselves in certain areas. So a student has very different motivations to attend these two very different schools. There's also a support factor. My guidance counselor told me that LCCC wasn't a good starting point for a career. Here, the guidance counselors actively promote the CCs because they feel confident in their programming. Is it purely quality? Maybe. But there is, at a minimum, a perception of quality and a pride that goes with that. So it's a bit tricky to say how a "free" tuition pass would help here. One school has a reputation for vocational programs and another two have reputations for academic degrees that you can transfer to four year schools. Those are very different ballgames so I'm not really buying that a politician's flick of a pen made a bat that can be used to play both. I think it is all political posturing. Low income individuals have been able to get free community college educations for years. That's probably why the state was able to just make it "free." So the state didn't really lose much money but a bunch of politicians got to hold a press conference and show how they care about the less fortunate.
The article explains this. This is only for Oregon residents who have recently graduated from high school with a 2.5 GPA at minimum. It's free for the students, but the government is putting aside $10 million to pay for this.
TAACCCP grant was like 2 billion, they funded 4 years and now would like to push for a 5th. What a waste of money.
Do you have an article on this? The law just passed in Oregon, so are you saying the grant is funding four future years?
I think Jennifer may be referring to a somewhat similar Federal program - here: Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College Career Training (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor Time-frame and $ numbers are approximately right. Apologies, if it turns out not to be the right one. :smile: J
I'm aware of that grant. It's available nationwide for programs that lead to employment in in-demand fields. The Edmonds Community College program I'm in is covered by that grant. I think it's a great thing.
If this is the grant Jennifer is referring to, then the $2 billion is being spent nationwide. I looked at a lot of these programs. Most of them seem to be aimed at the military, underemployed, and unemployed. I think this is a smarter way of spending money than having people receive unemployment benefits, food stamps, Section 8 vouchers, and other forms of assistance long-term. I don't see what this has to do with Oregon or how it's a waste of money.
You probably don't consider your free certificates as a form of public assistance, but it's the same pot of money. Oregon got 18.7 million of the TAACCCT money, whether they fund a promise program or a class, or tuition vouchers, what's the difference?
