Wrong answer for higher education
Published in the Bulder Daily Camera, 3/2/15
More than most towns in America, Boulder appreciates the value of higher education. Preparing young adults for the world and the vibrant culture that comes with university life have made Boulder what it is today. You'd have a hard time finding anyone in this town who doesn't agree that we should do as much as we can to help young people graduate from institutions of higher education.
While we should all appreciate how outstanding our current system is — from kindergarten through college — many of us recognize that this system is overdue for some reforms. In particular, higher education has become too expensive and too often guilty of not preparing students for a productive life in the real world. Time for some innovative thinking and new ideas.
Government at all levels has always played a significant role in public education and everyone welcomes good ideas about how government can better support and transform America's educational system. That's why the idea put forward by the Obama administration a few weeks back to make community college free is so disappointing. This idea is neither innovative nor new. Instead, it's just another bad idea built around the theme of throwing as much money as possible at a problem with little or no thought or accountability.
While the idea of free community college has a nice ring to it at first, it doesn't take much serious thought to conclude that this idea is more sound bite than substance.
For starters, why restrict any higher educational subsidies to just community colleges? That means someone in Boulder will have to forego the first two years of an education at CU to attend a community college just to get a government subsidy. While this idea might make some sense in highly populated (and blue) states like New York and California, it makes no sense in many states like Colorado where the community colleges' primary purpose is to provide higher-education opportunities to more remote areas.
Second, getting more people to attend community colleges is certain to drive up the cost of providing education at four-year colleges and universities. For example, the large lecture courses taught in lower division classes at CU underwrite the cost of the upper-division classes that need a lower student-to-instructor ratio. Encouraging students to take those classes at community colleges will drive up CU costs and, eventually, tuitions.
Third, community colleges have never been hotbeds of instructional innovation nor have they been found to be more likely to help students graduate faster or at higher rates. That's not intended as a criticism of community colleges, since that was never their role in higher education. Furthermore, the President would probably exclude from his plan the for-profit colleges where the incentive for innovation and lower costs driven by competition would be the greatest.
Finally, we don't need to do this to help students who can't afford higher education. If that's our goal, increase the number of Pell grants for low-income students and skip giving free community college to the one-percenters. That would be a cheaper and more effective way to help educate the poor in America.
The bottom line is that this looks like another half-baked idea that was never seriously vetted by experts in higher education. As such, it joins a growing list of this administration's poorly conceived ideas for throwing money at education in ways that will offer little benefit and unintended consequences. This list includes 1) gutting the teacher accountability standards in the No Child Left Behind law so that, instead of encouraging schools to help students in need, it's just another transfer of federal funds to state coffers, 2) providing students with easy access to federally-backed student loans that, while not increasing graduation rates, has led to more student debt and higher college tuitions, and 3) forgiving student loan debt to those who work for the government and non-profits, thereby biasing graduates against working in the private sector and further subsidizing government employees.
Higher education is ripe for innovation and America can certainly do better than this. Educational technology is rapidly maturing and ready for prime-time. Remote delivery of instruction by computer shows enormous growth potential. Adapting college curricula to better reflect the needs of the job market is essential. These ideas, and others yet to emerge, will only become part of the educational landscape with, as Edison said, 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration. It appears that Coloradans will get neither from this President.
More than most towns in America, Boulder appreciates the value of higher education. Preparing young adults for the world and the vibrant culture that comes with university life have made Boulder what it is today. You'd have a hard time finding anyone in this town who doesn't agree that we should do as much as we can to help young people graduate from institutions of higher education.
While we should all appreciate how outstanding our current system is — from kindergarten through college — many of us recognize that this system is overdue for some reforms. In particular, higher education has become too expensive and too often guilty of not preparing students for a productive life in the real world. Time for some innovative thinking and new ideas.
Government at all levels has always played a significant role in public education and everyone welcomes good ideas about how government can better support and transform America's educational system. That's why the idea put forward by the Obama administration a few weeks back to make community college free is so disappointing. This idea is neither innovative nor new. Instead, it's just another bad idea built around the theme of throwing as much money as possible at a problem with little or no thought or accountability.
While the idea of free community college has a nice ring to it at first, it doesn't take much serious thought to conclude that this idea is more sound bite than substance.
For starters, why restrict any higher educational subsidies to just community colleges? That means someone in Boulder will have to forego the first two years of an education at CU to attend a community college just to get a government subsidy. While this idea might make some sense in highly populated (and blue) states like New York and California, it makes no sense in many states like Colorado where the community colleges' primary purpose is to provide higher-education opportunities to more remote areas.
Second, getting more people to attend community colleges is certain to drive up the cost of providing education at four-year colleges and universities. For example, the large lecture courses taught in lower division classes at CU underwrite the cost of the upper-division classes that need a lower student-to-instructor ratio. Encouraging students to take those classes at community colleges will drive up CU costs and, eventually, tuitions.
Third, community colleges have never been hotbeds of instructional innovation nor have they been found to be more likely to help students graduate faster or at higher rates. That's not intended as a criticism of community colleges, since that was never their role in higher education. Furthermore, the President would probably exclude from his plan the for-profit colleges where the incentive for innovation and lower costs driven by competition would be the greatest.
Finally, we don't need to do this to help students who can't afford higher education. If that's our goal, increase the number of Pell grants for low-income students and skip giving free community college to the one-percenters. That would be a cheaper and more effective way to help educate the poor in America.
The bottom line is that this looks like another half-baked idea that was never seriously vetted by experts in higher education. As such, it joins a growing list of this administration's poorly conceived ideas for throwing money at education in ways that will offer little benefit and unintended consequences. This list includes 1) gutting the teacher accountability standards in the No Child Left Behind law so that, instead of encouraging schools to help students in need, it's just another transfer of federal funds to state coffers, 2) providing students with easy access to federally-backed student loans that, while not increasing graduation rates, has led to more student debt and higher college tuitions, and 3) forgiving student loan debt to those who work for the government and non-profits, thereby biasing graduates against working in the private sector and further subsidizing government employees.
Higher education is ripe for innovation and America can certainly do better than this. Educational technology is rapidly maturing and ready for prime-time. Remote delivery of instruction by computer shows enormous growth potential. Adapting college curricula to better reflect the needs of the job market is essential. These ideas, and others yet to emerge, will only become part of the educational landscape with, as Edison said, 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration. It appears that Coloradans will get neither from this President.
