It’s college admissions season, which means it’s time once again for the annual flood of stories that badly misrepresent what higher education looks like for most American students — and skew the public debate over everything from student debt to the purpose of college in the process.“How college admissions has turned into something akin to…
In her book, Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream, Suzanne Mettler quotes Rick Santorum saying, “President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to tests that aren’t taught by some liberal professors” (p. 19). Prior to taking a class on higher education, I would have agreed with Obama’s stance on the issue and would have questioned Santorum’s critique. I think President Obama’s idea has value and symbolizes his commitment to education and equality, or, at least, equal opportunity. However, I now find it difficult to see value in having everyone attend college—especially given the quality of many higher education institutions and the low graduation rates.
Mettler references a recent study that indicated students engage in low levels of learning and studying, which suggests that colleges have begun to dumb down the academics due to the unpreparedness of the students (p.20). Given that research, I do not think increasing the accessibility to higher education would actually change the reality that many students who attend college end up not learning anyways. It also seems wasteful to try to make college a reality for everyone when the reality is that not everyone desires a college education or has the ability to excel in a college setting. To me, it makes more sense for the government to invest more in secondary education so that when students graduate high school, they have more valuable skills to offer the job market or future college. Although this in itself will not increase the accessibility to college, I think it makes more financial and logical sense to put money into a system that affects almost all young people rather than to put money into a flawed system that only affects the few that desire access to it.
If the government invests more money in secondary school systems rather than focusing its efforts on a “college-for-all” model, I think Americans on average would harness more skill sets and competencies. High school students would also have more options available to them following graduation due to an increase in academic rigor, professional development, and other scholarly and extracurricular activities. If we can start viewing high school as a larger milestone that prepares students for a career, or the job market in general, rather than only viewing college as the milestone that prepares students for their careers, we can help to decrease the inequality surrounding education by increasing the quality of education. Making this change would involve a lot of logistics, resources, finances, and, in some cases, an overhaul of how some high schools operate.
One of the biggest reasons why scholars discuss inequality in higher education is because college graduates earn significantly higher incomes over time as compared to those with only a high school education. However, if the government first starts to put more funding into secondary education so that students actually feel prepared to handle a career or to enter college, which would in turn allow colleges to increase their academic rigor, it could make sense then to look into a “college-for-all” model. In an ideal world, our government could invest more money in all forms of education to ensure everyone can access college who desires to and everyone who desires to is adequately prepared to complete a degree. However, since our country has limited funds, as a taxpayer, I would much rather see my money poured into high schools that all Americans attend than I would see it put towards higher education institutions that only a small percentage can access and excel in. I think revamping the high school education system could have lasting effects on the value of a college degree, the job requirements employer set, and the stigma surrounding those who choose not to attend college, in a way that opens up more opportunities for all.
A college-for-all system may work in the distant future, but I do not think it would make sense, or even create positive change, at this time.
Many students that graduate from high school in my area move on to attend our local community college–Lehigh Carbon Community College, or L-Tri-C for short. However, during high school, I quickly learned about the opinions that my peers held about community college and “L- Tri-C” became “L-Tri-Harder.” Due to this nickname for our local community college, I too adopted a very negative view of community college and saw it as a poor excuse for an education.
After spending thousands of dollars on general education courses from a four-year private non-profit institution, I can honestly say that community college seems like it might have been a better financial option. Not only would I have saved on tuition, but I also would have saved on housing and a meal plan. Although community college may not have the prestige of Harvard or Princeton, it definitely gets the job done while cutting costs. Unfortunately, the stigma surrounding it often causes people to shut it down as a viable option.
One reason for this has to do with open admissions policies. In the world of higher education, we often equate selectivity with quality and assume that more selective schools are also better schools. Although this may be the case in some regards, it’s important to realize that it is not always the case. Many community colleges serve as feeder schools to four-year colleges and universities and these students end up doing as well as students who attend the four-year school for all four years (USA Today). The open admissions policy makes the college more accessible, but that does not mean students do not have to work hard to earn good grades.
Along with this, many people assume that community college is only for those who cannot get into other colleges. Attending community college does not indicate that a student is unable to receive admittance to a more selective four-year school. Community college is just a viable option after high school and can help students to save over $20,000 per year–the difference they would pay if they went right to a four-year private college.
Another stigma surrounding community college involves the notion that people who attend community college never end up going anywhere. To some extent, this is true: only 21% of students that started as first-year community college students in 2005 completed their associates degrees on time (College Board Trends). Research from Columbia University also indicates that students who enter community college are less likely to obtain a degree unless they come in with a plan (Jenkins & Cho). Taking a few classes just to start college without having a major or a transfer school in mind often indicates that the student will end up leaving community college without a degree or any certificates. If students do decide to pursue community college, they need to come in with a plan, or at least take steps towards making one during their first semester. Students must look at community college as a stepping stone towards something more, not a gap year.
To help break the community college stigma, we need more states to adopt programs like the state of California. State schools in California offer California community college students a Transfer Admissions Guarantee (TAG). These students take their first year and sophomore classes at a California community college and then transfer to a California state school of their choice for junior and senior year. This type of program encourages students to enter community college with a plan, which helps to ensure they’ll graduate with a degree. Thus, many students in California attend community college, not because they cannot get into state schools, but because they want to save as much money as they can. They take classes they know will transfer to fulfill requirements for graduation. Instead of a gap year guessing game, community college serves as a legitimate first two years of college that keeps a student on track for completing a bachelor’s degree in four years.
High schools should also recommend community college to more students than just those who might have a harder time gaining acceptance to a four-year school. Just because someone earned high SAT scores and good grades does not mean that they should take on the student loans needed to attend many four-year colleges. At my high school, the guidance counselor did not once ask me about what type of school I thought I could afford. All he wanted to do was encourage me to go to the most prestigious college I could gain acceptance to. I hope this is not everyone’s experience, but if it is and guidance counselor’s continue to work like that, the student loan problem will only get worse in coming years.
When considering community college, I also think people should spend time thinking about why they are going to college and what purpose college serves. If college is all about securing a degree and increasing post-graduate return on investment, then community college probably makes the most sense for many people. However, if college is all about the social experience–on-campus water parks, residential living, football games, and Greek life, then maybe community college doesn’t make sense.
I no longer think of “L-Tri-Harder” as an accurate portrayal of community college. I’m more optimistic about community college now than I ever was and I think more students and parents should be too. Just because a student has the ability to receive acceptance to a four-year college does not mean that that is their best move. However, if you want to ensure you’ll end up with a degree, head into community college with a 4-year plan. Don’t use community college to serve as your gap year–you’re likely to end up with some credits, but not likely to end up with a certification or degree.
Right now, 46% of all undergraduate students in the United States are in community college (American Association of Community Colleges). If Obama’s plan to make community college free works, I expect this number will only rise in the coming years. I hope the incentive of free college encourages more people to attend and FINISH school. This will only happen if more people start to see community college as a viable option and use it as a stepping stone to a future degree or career, not just a gap year.
Contrary to the title of this post, the school that I attend does not have a water park (unless students tubing down a creek counts as a water park). However, some colleges do. More and more colleges are attempting to lure prospective students to their schools with amenities–new gymnasiums, rock-climbing walls, lazy rivers, and campus beaches. If you are skeptical, check out the article from ABC News about “Tricked Out College Campuses.”
In my opinion, the most absurd amenity can be found on a college campus in Texas.
In 2009, Texas Tech began an $8.4 million project to upgrade the campus’ recreation center. This upgrade included a 654-foot long lazy river, a tanning salon, snack bars, and, according to the college’s website, the “largest leisure pool on a college campus in the United States.”
Unfortunately, the water park symbolizes a huge problem in the realm of higher education–students no longer value the quality of their education as much as they used to. A study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2013 indicates that students value amenities and this weighs heavily on their college decision.
Ivy League schools can breathe easy because the students they attract still value the quality of their education above all else. These types of institutions will have a better ROI if they put their money towards increasing their academic prestige. However, for less selective schools, catering to student demand for amenities makes the most sense from a financial standpoint–at least at this point in time.
Although this expenditure will appeal to prospective students, particularly out-of-state students who bring in higher revenue to the college, is this really where colleges should spend their money? In the case of state universities, the money to fund such projects comes from students’ tuition and funding from federal and state taxpayers. If colleges exist to better equip students to live professional lives and to engage as active and well-rounded citizens (perhaps I am being too naive with this claim), how does a water park play into this? How is this a responsible use of funds?
Prospective students might look at a school like Texas Tech and think, “Woh, free tanning and swimming? This school is great!” This idea will also be drilled into them when they take a tour of the college. However, I look at this school and think, “Is there something so wrong with your college that you need to win students over with a water park?” That money could have gone to so many other places. Scholarships? New lab equipment? An upgraded media lab? Professional development and research grants?
Sure, from a marketing and financial perspective, the water park distinguishes the school from its competition and thus brings in more students, but should a college focus so much on competition and the bottom line that it loses sight of its purpose? From 1999-2009, spending on student services rose 19% while instruction spending only rose 10% at public four-year research universities (College Unbound, Selingo).
Follow the money and you can see where the priorities of the institution lie.
On Higher Ed. 