English Champion is an academic website, not a political website. However, during President Obama’s State of the Union address last night, he briefly brought politics into our classrooms. Therefore, I feel it is necessary to offer a brief analysis of his comments regarding “free” community college. Here is what he said:
“I am sending this Congress a bold new plan to lower the cost of community college to zero. Keep in mind, 40 percent of our college students choose community college. Some are young and starting out. Some are older and looking for a better job. Some are veterans and single parents trying to transition back into the job market. Whoever you are, this plan is your chance to graduate ready for the new economy, without a load of debt. Understand, you’ve got to earn it. You’ve got to keep your grades up and graduate on time. Tennessee, a state with Republican leadership, and Chicago, a city with Democratic leadership, are showing that free community college is possible. I want to spread that idea all across America so that two years of college becomes as free and universal in America as high school is today.”
First, let me just say that when he initially offered this idea through a Vine video on January 8, I thought it was the perfect example of 21st century politics: use a social media site that allows you to say something every person will love, while embracing the 5-second constraint to avoid offering any of those pesky details of a complicated proposal. There is no more perfect way into a young person’s heart (and to get his vote into your pocket) than that. But there is a catch, of course.
There have already been countless analyses of this plan from political and financial perspectives (no such thing as free yada yada), so I am offering a different angle here. This is the academic side of the story. Since most people, especially politicians of any party, have no idea what actually goes on in a college classroom from a faculty standpoint, here is a list of five issues that are guaranteed to cause problems for everyone involved with Mr. Obama’s plan—administrators, teachers, students, and everyone in between. These are things only an insider who spends most of his waking hours inside a classroom will tell you.
1. Students will likely use this plan as a reason to plead with teachers for higher grades. This already happens when students claim to “need” high grades because of athletic/academic scholarships, as well as to maintain their federal financial aid benefits. I can’t tell you how many times students have complained about a grade I’ve given, not because they think it’s inaccurate or unfair, but because they know it affects their aid status. I’ve even had students on the first day of class pull me aside and say, “I need to get a “B” in here to keep my scholarship or else I won’t be able to afford school anymore....Just letting you know.” I always look at them with a your-grade-depends-on-you-not-me expression, but somehow that doesn’t seem to soothe them. This would likely happen with everyone now. We teachers would expect to have even more guilt trips placed upon us, since we would now be the ultimate steward for student retention.
2. Students will drop classes once they get a low grade, so as not to be in jeopardy of falling below the 2.0 GPA requirement. Again, this happens all the time already. Every semester, whenever students start falling behind, they suddenly vanish from classrooms. I’ve even asked students about why they want to drop, and many will flat out tell me, “Since I’m not getting the grade I want/need here, I’ll just retake the class later with a teacher who will give me the grade I want/need.” When I ask if this drop/retake cycle could go on ad infinitum, most just offer a resigned shrug and a casual, “I guess.” Yes, Mr. Obama’s stipulation that students graduate “on time” may constrain the class-dropping habit, but how can that possibly be enforced, and by whom? When students no longer pay for their own class time, we are incentivizing them to quit when things don’t go their way.
3. Grade inflation will result because we don’t want to lose students by giving them bad grades. Whether the students get the money directly or the school gets it doesn’t really matter—we don’t want to risk loss. If students receive low grades, dropping them below the 2.0 threshold, they may quit school altogether. This would likely deplete community college populations, endangering the livelihood of teachers since there may be fewer students to teach. It’s easier to keep everyone happy by just giving a kid a “C” and not rocking the boat. By the way, is a goal of 2.0 really what we are expecting? Is that what he meant when he said you’ve got to earn it and keep your grades up? Is a C-minus average “up” enough for the Obamas’ daughters? When the standard is that low, that is what you’ll get. Tell a high school gym class that they will get a passing grade for the day if they complete the mile run in 15 minutes, and let me know how many turn in Roger Bannister times.
4. Many might say that not having to worry about finances will free students’ minds to focus more on their studies, thus becoming more likely to earn high grades and then graduate on time. I contend the opposite could be true. Mr. Obama’s premise is like saying, “If only I didn’t have to pay for meals, I would develop healthy eating habits.” No, you wouldn’t. You would do whatever is most pleasurable and convenient because there is no financial consequence. Studying hard is not pleasurable and convenient. Students will likely focus on learning less with free schooling. Just look at the high school model for evidence. Students who attend public (free) schools aren’t outperforming students who have to pay private tuition. If they’re just there to get grades for free, there is less incentive to actually learn material. Actually paying for services makes everyone care a whole lot more.
5. What about students who don’t want to make a college education a career priority? I’ve had plenty of students over the years who, when I ask about their future plans, say they just want to be stay at home moms/dads. That they are only getting that associate’s degree as a backup in case they get desperate and have to get a job. I’ve also had plenty who have decided after a year of college study that they would prefer to leave and attend a trade school instead. What happens to the funds we bestow upon students who spend federal money on freshman philosophy and sociology courses that never get discussed again when they transfer to a private trade school to do electrical or plumbing or automotive work? Are we paying for students who may never actually finish or use their degree? How exactly does this help our economy?
This list may appear that I would like to hinder students’ opportunities for getting a college education by barring all the doors or plunging young people everywhere into massive debt while twisting my moustache and laughing ominously. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I’ve devoted my career to helping young people succeed not only academically, but in all areas of their lives. But we can’t be naïve in thinking that offering things for free doesn’t distort people’s pursuits of wants and needs. Is it possible that more students may be educated through Mr. Obama’s proposal? Absolutely, and that is a good thing for the country. We all want to increase the number of smart citizens. Is it possible that administrative red-tape will increase while student performance will decrease and we create a generation of under-educated citizens holding worthless pieces of paper with fancy calligraphy on it? Definitely, and that process is already underway at many colleges. The evidence is easy to find for anyone willing to look. Everything has a cost, and only sometimes does that include a dollar amount. Teaching students how to participate in the world is noble; teaching them to rely on free stuff is nuts.
If I have forgotten anything from this list or if you have any disagreements, please let me hear about it in the comments section.
“I am sending this Congress a bold new plan to lower the cost of community college to zero. Keep in mind, 40 percent of our college students choose community college. Some are young and starting out. Some are older and looking for a better job. Some are veterans and single parents trying to transition back into the job market. Whoever you are, this plan is your chance to graduate ready for the new economy, without a load of debt. Understand, you’ve got to earn it. You’ve got to keep your grades up and graduate on time. Tennessee, a state with Republican leadership, and Chicago, a city with Democratic leadership, are showing that free community college is possible. I want to spread that idea all across America so that two years of college becomes as free and universal in America as high school is today.”
First, let me just say that when he initially offered this idea through a Vine video on January 8, I thought it was the perfect example of 21st century politics: use a social media site that allows you to say something every person will love, while embracing the 5-second constraint to avoid offering any of those pesky details of a complicated proposal. There is no more perfect way into a young person’s heart (and to get his vote into your pocket) than that. But there is a catch, of course.
There have already been countless analyses of this plan from political and financial perspectives (no such thing as free yada yada), so I am offering a different angle here. This is the academic side of the story. Since most people, especially politicians of any party, have no idea what actually goes on in a college classroom from a faculty standpoint, here is a list of five issues that are guaranteed to cause problems for everyone involved with Mr. Obama’s plan—administrators, teachers, students, and everyone in between. These are things only an insider who spends most of his waking hours inside a classroom will tell you.
1. Students will likely use this plan as a reason to plead with teachers for higher grades. This already happens when students claim to “need” high grades because of athletic/academic scholarships, as well as to maintain their federal financial aid benefits. I can’t tell you how many times students have complained about a grade I’ve given, not because they think it’s inaccurate or unfair, but because they know it affects their aid status. I’ve even had students on the first day of class pull me aside and say, “I need to get a “B” in here to keep my scholarship or else I won’t be able to afford school anymore....Just letting you know.” I always look at them with a your-grade-depends-on-you-not-me expression, but somehow that doesn’t seem to soothe them. This would likely happen with everyone now. We teachers would expect to have even more guilt trips placed upon us, since we would now be the ultimate steward for student retention.
2. Students will drop classes once they get a low grade, so as not to be in jeopardy of falling below the 2.0 GPA requirement. Again, this happens all the time already. Every semester, whenever students start falling behind, they suddenly vanish from classrooms. I’ve even asked students about why they want to drop, and many will flat out tell me, “Since I’m not getting the grade I want/need here, I’ll just retake the class later with a teacher who will give me the grade I want/need.” When I ask if this drop/retake cycle could go on ad infinitum, most just offer a resigned shrug and a casual, “I guess.” Yes, Mr. Obama’s stipulation that students graduate “on time” may constrain the class-dropping habit, but how can that possibly be enforced, and by whom? When students no longer pay for their own class time, we are incentivizing them to quit when things don’t go their way.
3. Grade inflation will result because we don’t want to lose students by giving them bad grades. Whether the students get the money directly or the school gets it doesn’t really matter—we don’t want to risk loss. If students receive low grades, dropping them below the 2.0 threshold, they may quit school altogether. This would likely deplete community college populations, endangering the livelihood of teachers since there may be fewer students to teach. It’s easier to keep everyone happy by just giving a kid a “C” and not rocking the boat. By the way, is a goal of 2.0 really what we are expecting? Is that what he meant when he said you’ve got to earn it and keep your grades up? Is a C-minus average “up” enough for the Obamas’ daughters? When the standard is that low, that is what you’ll get. Tell a high school gym class that they will get a passing grade for the day if they complete the mile run in 15 minutes, and let me know how many turn in Roger Bannister times.
4. Many might say that not having to worry about finances will free students’ minds to focus more on their studies, thus becoming more likely to earn high grades and then graduate on time. I contend the opposite could be true. Mr. Obama’s premise is like saying, “If only I didn’t have to pay for meals, I would develop healthy eating habits.” No, you wouldn’t. You would do whatever is most pleasurable and convenient because there is no financial consequence. Studying hard is not pleasurable and convenient. Students will likely focus on learning less with free schooling. Just look at the high school model for evidence. Students who attend public (free) schools aren’t outperforming students who have to pay private tuition. If they’re just there to get grades for free, there is less incentive to actually learn material. Actually paying for services makes everyone care a whole lot more.
5. What about students who don’t want to make a college education a career priority? I’ve had plenty of students over the years who, when I ask about their future plans, say they just want to be stay at home moms/dads. That they are only getting that associate’s degree as a backup in case they get desperate and have to get a job. I’ve also had plenty who have decided after a year of college study that they would prefer to leave and attend a trade school instead. What happens to the funds we bestow upon students who spend federal money on freshman philosophy and sociology courses that never get discussed again when they transfer to a private trade school to do electrical or plumbing or automotive work? Are we paying for students who may never actually finish or use their degree? How exactly does this help our economy?
This list may appear that I would like to hinder students’ opportunities for getting a college education by barring all the doors or plunging young people everywhere into massive debt while twisting my moustache and laughing ominously. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I’ve devoted my career to helping young people succeed not only academically, but in all areas of their lives. But we can’t be naïve in thinking that offering things for free doesn’t distort people’s pursuits of wants and needs. Is it possible that more students may be educated through Mr. Obama’s proposal? Absolutely, and that is a good thing for the country. We all want to increase the number of smart citizens. Is it possible that administrative red-tape will increase while student performance will decrease and we create a generation of under-educated citizens holding worthless pieces of paper with fancy calligraphy on it? Definitely, and that process is already underway at many colleges. The evidence is easy to find for anyone willing to look. Everything has a cost, and only sometimes does that include a dollar amount. Teaching students how to participate in the world is noble; teaching them to rely on free stuff is nuts.
If I have forgotten anything from this list or if you have any disagreements, please let me hear about it in the comments section.