https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/fast-facts-and-challenge
8% of CC students already have a bachelor's degree.
Quote from: polly_mer on March 15, 2021, 07:29:37 PM
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/fast-facts-and-challenge
8% of CC students already have a bachelor's degree.
From the article:
Quote
The gender split among students -- a double-digit lead for women students -- has existed for some time. In the places where I've had access to the numbers, I've found a pretty consistent and striking skew by age: for students over 25, the gender gap is much larger than it is in the 18-22 group. Put differently, women over 25 are much more likely to come back to school than men over 25 are. The single best theory I have for that is opportunity cost; if women's wages are generally lower, then for a heterosexual couple, the opportunity cost of sending her back to school is lower than the opportunity cost of sending him back. (It's easier to live on the higher salary alone than on the lower salary alone.)
It's kind of odd that he didn't automatically consider the difference between men and women in
what kinds of disciplines they study. Taking a look at what disciplines people studied
originally compared to what they came back for would be informative. My hunch is that they've come back for something much more employment-focused after studying something much more esoteric.
Or women are more likely to change fields after a five or ten years of being a nurse or teacher to get a much more flexible office job with a chair.
I know many people who picked an undergrad major for immediate job possibilities and then found the reality of the job not conducive to the other parts of life, especially after kids.
I know many women who stayed home with the small kids, went back to college/grad school with bigger kids, and then rejoined the workforce with a job in a different business sector.
I also know many people who hit 35 and realized that they need a higher paying job. Taking a few classes to be eligible for an internal transfer at a large employer is straightforward and doesn't require being a full-time student. Moving up from an entry-level clerk job by taking classes is a standard path. If one already has a professional job in a related field then a lateral transfer doesn't need another formal credential.
I wonder what portion of that 8% are in health related and business related classes.
It's really common for my pre-health students to take some CC courses to fill in pre-requisites after graduation while gaining some work experience during a gap year or two, especially those that had a rocky start to college or decided they wanted to attend med school/vet school/nursing school part way through their bachelors.
Quote from: polly_mer on March 16, 2021, 06:55:19 AM
Or women are more likely to change fields after a five or ten years of being a nurse or teacher to get a much more flexible office job with a chair.
Nursing and teaching are mostly-female professions that have tremendously high burnout rates nowadays. And yes, women are much more likely to change work fields for child-related reasons.
Quote from: apl68 on March 16, 2021, 07:21:41 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on March 16, 2021, 06:55:19 AM
Or women are more likely to change fields after a five or ten years of being a nurse or teacher to get a much more flexible office job with a chair.
Nursing and teaching are mostly-female professions that have tremendously high burnout rates nowadays. And yes, women are much more likely to change work fields for child-related reasons.
That still illustrates the strange idea in the article that it's something inexplicable.
Quote
Put differently, women over 25 are much more likely to come back to school than men over 25 are. The single best theory I have for that is opportunity cost; if women's wages are generally lower, then for a heterosexual couple, the opportunity cost of sending her back to school is lower than the opportunity cost of sending him back. (It's easier to live on the higher salary alone than on the lower salary alone.)
Burnout at a reasonably paying job is much more tangible (and testable) than "women's wages are generally lower", which carries that vague idea of "systemic discrimination".
The 8% doesn't surprise me-- Everyplace I've lived, the local CC sends residents a catalog of classes non-degree students might want to take for personal enrichment (art classes, languages, etc.).
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 16, 2021, 07:39:13 AM
Quote from: apl68 on March 16, 2021, 07:21:41 AM
Quote from: polly_mer on March 16, 2021, 06:55:19 AM
Or women are more likely to change fields after a five or ten years of being a nurse or teacher to get a much more flexible office job with a chair.
Nursing and teaching are mostly-female professions that have tremendously high burnout rates nowadays. And yes, women are much more likely to change work fields for child-related reasons.
That still illustrates the strange idea in the article that it's something inexplicable.
Quote
Put differently, women over 25 are much more likely to come back to school than men over 25 are. The single best theory I have for that is opportunity cost; if women's wages are generally lower, then for a heterosexual couple, the opportunity cost of sending her back to school is lower than the opportunity cost of sending him back. (It's easier to live on the higher salary alone than on the lower salary alone.)
Burnout at a reasonably paying job is much more tangible (and testable) than "women's wages are generally lower", which carries that vague idea of "systemic discrimination".
I mean, the fact that women's wages are generally lower for the same job is a very tangible and testable thing.
Whether that contributes a causal rather than correlational relationship isn't really any easier or harder to test than the likelihood that burnout was the causal root. You'd set up pretty much the same study to test either one: survey people about why they went back to school and look at gender based differences.
You seem to be taking issue with this because you're biased against the idea that it might be "systemic discrimination" as a cause.
Quote from: eigen on March 16, 2021, 08:36:52 AM
You seem to be taking issue with this because you're biased against the idea that it might be "systemic discrimination" as a cause.
No; as I said earlier, I'm taking issue with the idea that the question of why more women than men go back to school is somehow mysterious. It's weird that the writer puts it down as being
probably due to vague "wage differences" rather than to various reasons of career dissatisfaction and/or changing life goals, as other people have outlined.
And none of those specifically rely on any systemic difference between male and female wages. (Presumably burnout is not going to disappear with a wage increase, nor is the desire to spend more time at home raising children.) The wage discrepancy "best guess" seems to be more "Hail Mary" virtue signalling.
Quote
Whether that contributes a causal rather than correlational relationship isn't really any easier or harder to test than the likelihood that burnout was the causal root. You'd set up pretty much the same study to test either one: survey people about why they went back to school and look at gender based differences.
But that still isn't automatically going to establish whether it's causal, since the different factors interact. For instance, if both members of a couple are equally unhappy with their jobs, but one has more interest in working part time and having more time with family, then that may determine their choices even if there is a small difference in their wages. If the wage difference is larger, then that may push things in the other direction.
The point is that the difference between male and female wages is unlikely to be the
explicit major factor in the decision. It may be
implicit in career and life choices, etc. in which case it's not the primary factor.
You seem to be making an awful lot of definitive statements without providing any data to back up your reasoning. I'd expect to see a lot more to back up your points if you want to suggest something is "unlikely". So far I've seen you present nothing hard to support your assertions that the given reasoning is unlikely other than you don't like the suggestion because it "seems like 'Hail Mary' virtue signalling.
I'm also interested that you are both upset that the author isn't pinning down a specific reason (citing it as a mystery) while simultaneously arguing that it's too complicated of an entanglement to easily pull apart. Seems like you agree with the author that while there are possible explanations, the exact reason is, in fact, a mystery?
They have their "probable" cause based on their experience (it's an opinion piece, after all) and they give more support to their argument (systemic wage issues that are well known) than you do to your "everyone knows" arguments about burnout.
I wonder how many of these women are in heterosexual couples, as opposed to single or non-heterosexual. The author seems to assume that most of them are, and that either person in the couple would go for further education if it weren't for the salary difference.
My own guess as to the prevalence of women retraining is that it's due to the preponderance of women in higher education generally. For whatever reason — we can wrangle about that another time — women are in the majority even for regular BAs, and are in the majority in many fields requiring graduate or professional school. My informal take on it, just from talking to people, is that women prefer a structured path to a career. Similarly women are the majority in study-abroad programs. The men say they will graduate and go abroad on their own (which in fact they don't end up doing in the numbers that say they will). So it makes sense that in wondering how to move forward with some kind of career change, women would look for the structured path, i.e. more schooling.
Most of my students who already have bachelor's degrees are nontraditional-aged students (at least in their late 20's) that are wanting a very different career change. This doesn't seem at all unusual to me. I applaud these students for having the time and energy to pursue a new course of academic study.
I also have some students coming back to college because their original bachelor's degree is from a foreign country whose Higher Education system did not align well/properly for the that bachelor's degree to be fully accepted by U.S. employers. This also doesn't seem at all unusual to me.
Here's something the writer doesn't mention, as well. Women on average have lower salaries, which means that they (according to the writer) are more "available" to go back to school for training. Which means they will have increased student debt. So those that don't have, now have even less.
Some more interesting statistics from the informational graphic that the article cites:
Over 20% of CC revenues are local. I'd always assumed that their public funding was almost entirely from state appropriations.
28% of CCs have on-campus housing. Again, it's surprising to hear that it's that high.
15% of students are single parents. Almost all single moms trying better to support their children, I'm guessing.
Three decades after my BA, 25 years out of grad school, and with over 20 years of full-time library work, I'm now making almost the median figure for somebody with an associate degree.
Quote from: apl68 on March 16, 2021, 01:07:53 PM
Some more interesting statistics from the informational graphic that the article cites:
Over 20% of CC revenues are local. I'd always assumed that their public funding was almost entirely from state appropriations.
28% of CCs have on-campus housing. Again, it's surprising to hear that it's that high.
15% of students are single parents. Almost all single moms trying better to support their children, I'm guessing.
Not familiar with data on this, but I think it's reasonable to assume that the percentage of first-time, full-time 18-22 year old undergraduates at four-year institutions who are single parents is far, far lower than 15%. I think this is one reason to plow pandemic-related aid to higher ed into community college systems. Women, especially mothers, and especially single mothers, have withdrawn from the labor force at higher rates during the pandemic because their jobs disappeared or they couldn't afford child care while K-12 schools were closed.
Quote
Three decades after my BA, 25 years out of grad school, and with over 20 years of full-time library work, I'm now making almost the median figure for somebody with an associate degree.
For many women who want to increase their incomes, especially those who have become single parents, community college makes far more economic sense than a master's or Ph.D.
Examples that illustrate the above, just two of the many such people I have encountered in my usual travels:
A dental hygienist who had been a stay-at-home mom with two children under the age of four, who suddenly found herself divorced at age 25. Became financially self-supporting after an eighteen-month community college dental hygienist training program.
A nurse who was a corporate lawyer in NYC in 2008 and who saw that her employer was not going to survive over the long term. She decided to switch careers. ADN from community college and she now works full-time as a nurse, with a schedule that has allowed her to have children.
Quote from: marshwiggle on March 16, 2021, 08:57:42 AM
And none of those specifically rely on any systemic difference between male and female wages. (Presumably burnout is not going to disappear with a wage increase, nor is the desire to spend more time at home raising children.)
More money for about the same effort on the job absolutely reduces burnout. Having the money to buy out of chores and errands makes a huge difference for daily life. Having the money to buy the first option instead of having to shop for the best bargain makes a huge difference. Being able to purchase healthy, premade food instead of having to allocate hours to growing and then preparing food makes a huge difference.
Having flexibility in one's schedule with paid time off, even without extra money, makes a huge difference.
Having a money cushion so that an unexpected expense of even five hundred dollars is a minor annoyance instead of a catastrophe is really a difference to daily life.
Quote
But that still isn't automatically going to establish whether it's causal, since the different factors interact. For instance, if both members of a couple are equally unhappy with their jobs, but one has more interest in working part time and having more time with family, then that may determine their choices even if there is a small difference in their wages. If the wage difference is larger, then that may push things in the other direction.
The point is that the difference between male and female wages is unlikely to be the explicit major factor in the decision. It may be implicit in career and life choices, etc. in which case it's not the primary factor.
The most my husband has ever made is under $30k per year. I currently make six figures and my husband handles the house and child.
When I was nine months pregnant and hugely unhappy with my job, I could not possibly quit because my husband was unemployed. Somebody had to earn money and there's no way Mr. Humanities BA with clerk-level experience can replace my graduate engineering salary.
We have extra life insurance on me because my income supports everything and Mr. Mer can probably get another job after a few years of experience or retraining as a person over fifty.
Most of the trailing spouses here are in the same boat, but it's much more likely to be a male engineer and a female clerk-type currently at home with the kids. It's unusual for the woman to make several times more than ber husband, but it's still pretty common for the woman to make half or less income due to choosing a lower-paying field.
QuoteA nurse who was a corporate lawyer in NYC in 2008 and who saw that her employer was not going to survive over the long term. She decided to switch careers. ADN from community college and she now works full-time as a nurse, with a schedule that has allowed her to have children.
Mercy, Spork!
Don't know whether I'd like a corporate lawyer as a nurse: If you don't take these meds right now, we'll sue you for negligence in contract fulfillment!
Let's hope that the woman in question just had found herself in the wrong occupation and CC enabled her to enter the right one.
Long live CC's.
Full disclosure: I am not at a CC. For my own fun as someone who teaches and supports Quantitative Reasoning I've tried to verify the veracity of the headline, and cannot verify the 40% figure. The only reference I can find is the Fast fact sheet. I've looked at the latest NCES data, and the best I can do without much more work (that I'm not willing to do at the moment) is for 18-24 year olds, link attached. I am quite confident that the actual number is lower than 40%, and much lower if you look at credit hours. Doesn't change what I see as the importance of more adequately funding CCs, and IMO, the upward mobility opportunities they provide.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_302.60.asp
Focusing on 18-24 year olds will miss much of the relevant population. Try https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp. figure 5.
Quote from: polly_mer on March 15, 2021, 07:29:37 PM
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/fast-facts-and-challenge
8% of CC students already have a bachelor's degree.
I wonder if that is 8 per cent of total students, or 8 per cent of students who are pursuing a degree. I mean, I am a CC student, since I am taking a class a semester for the past two years in literature at the school I teach part time (because I am allowed to get one class a semester free). My retired parents (both with graduate degrees) have been CC students because they have taken Spanish courses. There is a reason why they are called community colleges.
I do know people who have had a BA and gone back to a CC. Usually they are people with liberal arts degrees who are taking courses for health-related jobs. When I taught at a CC, I also had a fair number of students with foreign degrees who were taking courses to be able to get a job in the U.S.
Quote from: dismalist on March 16, 2021, 03:21:08 PM
QuoteA nurse who was a corporate lawyer in NYC in 2008 and who saw that her employer was not going to survive over the long term. She decided to switch careers. ADN from community college and she now works full-time as a nurse, with a schedule that has allowed her to have children.
Mercy, Spork!
Don't know whether I'd like a corporate lawyer as a nurse: If you don't take these meds right now, we'll sue you for negligence in contract fulfillment!
Let's hope that the woman in question just had found herself in the wrong occupation and CC enabled her to enter the right one.
Long live CC's.
Attention to detail is basically a prerequisite for many high-paying occupations. She's a good nurse and I assume she was also a competent lawyer.
I'm still dumbfounded by the number of 18-22 year old, full-time, first-time college students at non-prestigious four-year private universities who could cut the cost of their bachelor's degree in half by attending community college for the first two years and then transferring.
Quote from: jerseyjay on March 16, 2021, 03:55:07 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on March 15, 2021, 07:29:37 PM
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/fast-facts-and-challenge
8% of CC students already have a bachelor's degree.
I wonder if that is 8 per cent of total students, or 8 per cent of students who are pursuing a degree. I mean, I am a CC student, since I am taking a class a semester for the past two years in literature at the school I teach part time (because I am allowed to get one class a semester free). My retired parents (both with graduate degrees) have been CC students because they have taken Spanish courses. There is a reason why they are called community colleges.
I do know people who have had a BA and gone back to a CC. Usually they are people with liberal arts degrees who are taking courses for health-related jobs. When I taught at a CC, I also had a fair number of students with foreign degrees who were taking courses to be able to get a job in the U.S.
I'm a community college student this semester. After a year of intending to learn a new software on my own, I finally admitted that external deadlines, assignments, and grades would motivate me. Finding that one of my honors seminar students is a classmate has been highly motivating, too.
Quote from: polly_mer on March 16, 2021, 03:48:37 PM
Focusing on 18-24 year olds will miss much of the relevant population. Try https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp. figure 5.
Thanks! In my defense I wasn't focusing, just unable to locate in the NCES source they cited. So head count seems pretty stable at 35%.
I'm wondering now what the actual situation is since COVID.
Quote from: Vkw10 on March 16, 2021, 04:25:19 PM
Quote from: jerseyjay on March 16, 2021, 03:55:07 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on March 15, 2021, 07:29:37 PM
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/fast-facts-and-challenge
8% of CC students already have a bachelor's degree.
I wonder if that is 8 per cent of total students, or 8 per cent of students who are pursuing a degree. I mean, I am a CC student, since I am taking a class a semester for the past two years in literature at the school I teach part time (because I am allowed to get one class a semester free). My retired parents (both with graduate degrees) have been CC students because they have taken Spanish courses. There is a reason why they are called community colleges.
I do know people who have had a BA and gone back to a CC. Usually they are people with liberal arts degrees who are taking courses for health-related jobs. When I taught at a CC, I also had a fair number of students with foreign degrees who were taking courses to be able to get a job in the U.S.
I'm a community college student this semester. After a year of intending to learn a new software on my own, I finally admitted that external deadlines, assignments, and grades would motivate me. Finding that one of my honors seminar students is a classmate has been highly motivating, too.
Lots of students at our CC have BA, even Master's degrees. They take classes to learn new skills, learn a new language, and so on. At ours the rate is pretty high because our city has a lot of people with degrees, hence that's the pool we draw from.
Quote from: spork on March 16, 2021, 04:03:45 PM
I'm still dumbfounded by the number of 18-22 year old, full-time, first-time college students at non-prestigious four-year private universities who could cut the cost of their bachelor's degree in half by attending community college for the first two years and then transferring.
Well, attending a CC seems to be a very drab, no-frills experience. Presumably many traditional-age students feel that those frills of the four-year college experience on a four-year campus are worth paying for. Like those student athletes we've been hearing about who pay full tuition to play on the school's non-ranked team for four years.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on March 16, 2021, 04:34:17 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on March 16, 2021, 03:48:37 PM
Focusing on 18-24 year olds will miss much of the relevant population. Try https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp. figure 5.
Thanks! In my defense I wasn't focusing, just unable to locate in the NCES source they cited. So head count seems pretty stable at 35%.
I have a soapbox regarding the huge gap between what people picture as a typical college student and the national reality. Many metrics start by limiting to full-time, first-time students and that's misleading. NPR has a good article on how "non-traditional" students are now the solid majority: https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/09/04/638561407/todays-college-students-arent-who-you-think-they-are
Yet another reason why the Dinky Colleges of the country that focus on traditional students are likely to face some serious challenges with enrollment.
Quote from: polly_mer on March 17, 2021, 06:35:50 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on March 16, 2021, 04:34:17 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on March 16, 2021, 03:48:37 PM
Focusing on 18-24 year olds will miss much of the relevant population. Try https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp. figure 5.
Thanks! In my defense I wasn't focusing, just unable to locate in the NCES source they cited. So head count seems pretty stable at 35%.
I have a soapbox regarding the huge gap between what people picture as a typical college student and the national reality. Many metrics start by limiting to full-time, first-time students and that's misleading. NPR has a good article on how "non-traditional" students are now the solid majority: https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/09/04/638561407/todays-college-students-arent-who-you-think-they-are
This quote at the end caught my attention:
QuoteOne thing for sure, says Radford, is that it's probably time to coin a new phrase for nontraditional students, considering they are the new normal.
I don't know about that. "Nontraditional" is a pretty handy shorthand term for distinguishing between "recent high school graduates without serious responsibilities attending four-year schools" from a very diverse body of people doing otherwise. Something tells me that any replacement term would probably be more cumbersome. The fact that "nontraditional" students, whatever we call them, are now in the clear majority doesn't make them any less "nontraditional."
Whatever the terminology, what's important is that people understand that the traditonal-profile students are indeed no longer the norm nationwide.
Quote from: apl68 on March 17, 2021, 06:21:12 AM
Quote from: spork on March 16, 2021, 04:03:45 PM
I'm still dumbfounded by the number of 18-22 year old, full-time, first-time college students at non-prestigious four-year private universities who could cut the cost of their bachelor's degree in half by attending community college for the first two years and then transferring.
Well, attending a CC seems to be a very drab, no-frills experience. Presumably many traditional-age students feel that those frills of the four-year college experience on a four-year campus are worth paying for. Like those student athletes we've been hearing about who pay full tuition to play on the school's non-ranked team for four years.
Yes. Outside of dedicated vocational career training functions (which CC's perform very well at), most community colleges are very much "partial-service" Higher Education entities. Most of them offer just the barest bare-bones listing of generic general elective courses. So there are few course choices available to students. This is no fun for students.
There is very little in the way of academic advising at most community colleges. This is not good for students.
There is little/no "campus life" experiential education at most community colleges. The enrichment component within the U.S. Higher Education mission is mostly nonexistent at most community colleges. Clubs. Student Activities. Extramurals. Athletics. Events. Local conferences. Undergraduate research. Independent Research. Internships. Student Work. These are all important components of a full-service institution that constitute the bulk of the university enrichment mission. Not having this is very much no fun or no good for students.
Being Open Enrollment institutions in the purest sense (if you breathe and have a credit card, you're in!) academic performance standards and norms are often lower than that expected at 4-year universities. It is common for most incoming CC students to not have taken any "college prep" high schools courses that are the norm for most incoming freshmen at 4-year universities. The math, english, writing, and science background that a lot of CC students enter with from their high school background is not at the same level as that for most freshmen at 4-year universities. For one example, many CC students might not have ever completed any high school level chemistry, biology, geometry, advanced algebra, and/or creative writing. For another example, my own personal experiences of community colleges and community college students strongly shows that the community college students complete far less analytical and and writing-based assessment compared to their peers at 4-year institutions. Those same community college students tend to also have far lower proficiency in operating Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel, and this lack of use burns these students hard when they transfer into STEM majors at 4-year universities. This is not good for students.
Many faculty employed at community colleges have only the most minimum academic credentials required to teach at the college level, and perform little/no relevant academic service and/or research to maintain professional currency in their field. For example, I have colleagues at Big Urban College that are *younger than me and fresher out of their Master's degrees* yet believe that double-stranded DNA is the only kind of DNA that exists, that Biological Taxonomy is static, that our understanding of Human Anatomy and Physiology is now "complete and there is nothing new in the field so we can use 1990's era textbooks", that don't understand what a null hypothesis is or what its application is, have never published anything in their field and don't know themselves know how to design or carry out experiments, etc... It is both alarming and surprising that such a wide gulf in professional training and experiences may exist within employed Higher Education faculty, yet it is there. This is not good for students.
All things considered from what I've directly seen and experienced from both sides the CC vs. 4-year university operating models, I would (and do) strongly advise any graduating high school student to *not* attend a community college except for when they don't have good choices to do anything else. I will instead direct prospective new college students into an appropriate R1/R2/SLAC. Their odds of them successfully graduating with a 4-year degree are roughly
40% higher at our local-area R2 if they start out at that R2 (vs. transferring in later from a community college). I actually keep a hardcopy of that statistic on a wall in my office and show it to students when they ask me when they should transfer.
"Now.""As Soon As You Can.""Next Semester."Much of the duality between CC's and 4-year universities appears self-inflicted to me. The two types of institutions operate mostly as independent siloes from one another. Most faculty at 4-year institutions have no direct experience or engagement with community college teaching/assessment, and most community college faculty have no direct experiences or engagement with 4-year university faculty teaching/assessment (outside of their own personal experiences as an undergraduate and the 2-3 years that they spent in graduate school). And so the faculty at each of the two institutional types begin concocting their own mythos that the other institutional type is working much like they are, and that 2+2 transfers are seamless and fine. And yet, the "community college education" stereotype persists to the general public. Locally for me, not much more than half of of Big Urban College's transfer students that matriculate to our local R2 will actually end up graduating with a 4-year degree. The rest of them drop out with a much higher frequency than that of the students at local R2 that entered there as freshmen. It is all very interesting to observe, in a depressing sort of way.
Quote from: Aster on March 17, 2021, 10:34:28 AM
Quote from: apl68 on March 17, 2021, 06:21:12 AM
Quote from: spork on March 16, 2021, 04:03:45 PM
I'm still dumbfounded by the number of 18-22 year old, full-time, first-time college students at non-prestigious four-year private universities who could cut the cost of their bachelor's degree in half by attending community college for the first two years and then transferring.
Well, attending a CC seems to be a very drab, no-frills experience. Presumably many traditional-age students feel that those frills of the four-year college experience on a four-year campus are worth paying for. Like those student athletes we've been hearing about who pay full tuition to play on the school's non-ranked team for four years.
Yes. Outside of dedicated vocational career training functions (which CC's perform very well at), most community colleges are very much "partial-service" Higher Education entities. Most of them offer just the barest bare-bones listing of generic general elective courses. So there are few course choices available to students. This is no fun for students.
There is very little in the way of academic advising at most community colleges. This is not good for students.
There is little/no "campus life" experiential education at most community colleges. The enrichment component within the U.S. Higher Education mission is mostly nonexistent at most community colleges. Clubs. Student Activities. Extramurals. Athletics. Events. Local conferences. Undergraduate research. Independent Research. Internships. Student Work. These are all important components of a full-service institution that constitute the bulk of the university enrichment mission. Not having this is very much no fun or no good for students.
Being Open Enrollment institutions in the purest sense (if you breathe and have a credit card, you're in!) academic performance standards and norms are often lower than that expected at 4-year universities. It is common for most incoming CC students to not have taken any "college prep" high schools courses that are the norm for most incoming freshmen at 4-year universities. The math, english, writing, and science background that a lot of CC students enter with from their high school background is not at the same level as that for most freshmen at 4-year universities. For one example, many CC students might not have ever completed any high school level chemistry, biology, geometry, advanced algebra, and/or creative writing. For another example, my own personal experiences of community colleges and community college students strongly shows that the community college students complete far less analytical and and writing-based assessment compared to their peers at 4-year institutions. Those same community college students tend to also have far lower proficiency in operating Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel, and this lack of use burns these students hard when they transfer into STEM majors at 4-year universities. This is not good for students.
Many faculty employed at community colleges have only the most minimum academic credentials required to teach at the college level, and perform little/no relevant academic service and/or research to maintain professional currency in their field. For example, I have colleagues at Big Urban College that are *younger than me and fresher out of their Master's degrees* yet believe that double-stranded DNA is the only kind of DNA that exists, that Biological Taxonomy is static, that our understanding of Human Anatomy and Physiology is now "complete and there is nothing new in the field so we can use 1990's era textbooks", that don't understand what a null hypothesis is or what its application is, have never published anything in their field and don't know themselves know how to design or carry out experiments, etc... It is both alarming and surprising that such a wide gulf in professional training and experiences may exist within employed Higher Education faculty, yet it is there. This is not good for students.
All things considered from what I've directly seen and experienced from both sides the CC vs. 4-year university operating models, I would (and do) strongly advise any graduating high school student to *not* attend a community college except for when they don't have good choices to do anything else. I will instead direct prospective new college students into an appropriate R1/R2/SLAC. Their odds of them successfully graduating with a 4-year degree are roughly 40% higher at our local-area R2 if they start out at that R2 (vs. transferring in later from a community college). I actually keep a hardcopy of that statistic on a wall in my office and show it to students when they ask me when they should transfer.
"Now."
"As Soon As You Can."
"Next Semester."
Much of the duality between CC's and 4-year universities appears self-inflicted to me. The two types of institutions operate mostly as independent siloes from one another. Most faculty at 4-year institutions have no direct experience or engagement with community college teaching/assessment, and most community college faculty have no direct experiences or engagement with 4-year university faculty teaching/assessment (outside of their own personal experiences as an undergraduate and the 2-3 years that they spent in graduate school). And so the faculty at each of the two institutional types begin concocting their own mythos that the other institutional type is working much like they are, and that 2+2 transfers are seamless and fine. And yet, the "community college education" stereotype persists to the general public. Locally for me, not much more than half of of Big Urban College's transfer students that matriculate to our local R2 will actually end up graduating with a 4-year degree. The rest of them drop out with a much higher frequency than that of the students at local R2 that entered there as freshmen. It is all very interesting to observe, in a depressing sort of way.
1. I agree that many CCs do dedicated vocational training well and, in many respects, cost effectively.
2. I agree that the arbitrary professional and curricular siloes between CC and four-year institution faculty are counter-productive. Many states have tried to ensure that CC courses eligible for transfer and courses at four-year campuses are equivalent in quality. But I think it's safe to say that this goal has not always been achieved.
3. I disagree with the bolded part, because I don't think all undergraduates need or want a full-service university enrichment experience. University-provided housing, clubs, athletic teams, etc., which in the end come at student expense, are not the norm in higher education outside the USA. In many countries students who attend four-year universities live with their parents; the only students living in campus dormitories are those who come from remote rural villages. And university sports teams are unheard of; athletics happens in completely separate private leagues. But more relevant to the USA, if at least 40% of college undergraduates are enrolled at CCs, presumably some of them do so because the four-year enrichment experience is simply not affordable or desirable.
Quote from: spork on March 17, 2021, 11:43:37 AM
3. I disagree with the bolded part, because I don't think all undergraduates need or want a full-service university enrichment experience. University-provided housing, clubs, athletic teams, etc., which in the end come at student expense, are not the norm in higher education outside the USA. In many countries students who attend four-year universities live with their parents; the only students living in campus dormitories are those who come from remote rural villages. And university sports teams are unheard of; athletics happens in completely separate private leagues. But more relevant to the USA, if at least 40% of college undergraduates are enrolled at CCs, presumably some of them do so because the four-year enrichment experience is simply not affordable or desirable.
From another thread (https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=1134.msg64841#msg64841), students were willing to pay 4% more for in-person classes, and 8% more for on-campus amenities. So if the cost of a "bare-bones" experience is less than about 90% of the cost of a "full-service" experience, a large numebr of students will take the latter.
Students starting at CCs to save money often get ripped off because the students don't know:
* transfer requirements in majors that have prerequisite sequences that span the entire four years mean you really have to plan and take courses in order.
* taking all gen eds in the first two years may mean another four years after transfer because gen eds are almost none of the requirements for many degrees
* first-year internships are a thing for some majors. Losing a couple summers of relevant college internship experience likely means a much longer road to being a professional.
* less networking with the relevant aspiring professional peers. The friendships are formed well before junior year.
The advice to take cheap classes at the CC and transfer is bad for the people who really need college as a networking and intro to professionalism experience.
Unless the specific program has a firm, explicit articulation agreement or the student is really exploring cheaply, starting at a CC and transferring tends to lengthen time to degree and saves very little money through loss of credits that don't transfer as meeting degree requirements.
Indiana has addressed the transfer confusion issue with programs called TSAPs (Transfer Single Articulation Pathways). If you do the specified 60 hours in such a degree at a CC you can transfer that to any public four year that offers that degree and are guaranteed to be able to graduate with 60 required hours completed.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on March 17, 2021, 02:49:22 PM
Indiana has addressed the transfer confusion issue with programs called TSAPs (Transfer Single Articulation Pathways). If you do the specified 60 hours in such a degree at a CC you can transfer that to any public four year that offers that degree and are guaranteed to be able to graduate with 60 required hours completed.
We have similar articulation agreements with local CCs even though we are private. My employer doesn't advertise this nearly as well as it should, but sometimes I encounter a former CC student in one of my courses and the person performs as well or better than the students who started here as freshmen. But that's not a high bar.
Quote from: spork on March 17, 2021, 03:41:45 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on March 17, 2021, 02:49:22 PM
Indiana has addressed the transfer confusion issue with programs called TSAPs (Transfer Single Articulation Pathways). If you do the specified 60 hours in such a degree at a CC you can transfer that to any public four year that offers that degree and are guaranteed to be able to graduate with 60 required hours completed.
We have similar articulation agreements with local CCs even though we are private. My employer doesn't advertise this nearly as well as it should, but sometimes I encounter a former CC student in one of my courses and the person performs as well or better than the students who started here as freshmen. But that's not a high bar.
The thing that's cool about these is they are for all our publics. We've always had individual agreements, but this makes it very transparent what will work statewide. For lower income students (particularly those who have dual credit at the CCs as high school students) they have a ton of advantages.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on March 17, 2021, 03:56:45 PM
Quote from: spork on March 17, 2021, 03:41:45 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on March 17, 2021, 02:49:22 PM
Indiana has addressed the transfer confusion issue with programs called TSAPs (Transfer Single Articulation Pathways). If you do the specified 60 hours in such a degree at a CC you can transfer that to any public four year that offers that degree and are guaranteed to be able to graduate with 60 required hours completed.
We have similar articulation agreements with local CCs even though we are private. My employer doesn't advertise this nearly as well as it should, but sometimes I encounter a former CC student in one of my courses and the person performs as well or better than the students who started here as freshmen. But that's not a high bar.
The thing that's cool about these is they are for all our publics. We've always had individual agreements, but this makes it very transparent what will work statewide. For lower income students (particularly those who have dual credit at the CCs as high school students) they have a ton of advantages.
New York has something similar, at least within the 64 campuses of the SUNY system. "Systemness" was the slogan.
There are similar articulation agreements within and with CUNY, and other CC's.
Two things have cropped up during implementation:
1. completing the credits isn't sufficient; students have to complete the degree to guarantee Junior standing.
2. not all cc programs really prepare all students for all upper division university courses. It isn't nice to say, or to hear, but it's true. Scraping C's at a CC may not translate to success at an R1.
As for the need for retraining and continuing ed, there are lots of jobs that aren't really viable lifelong careers.