Hacker News Reader

Comment by jawns | Hacker News Reader

As the article points out, one major reason why people don't enroll in community college, even if it's free, is that they need to work full-time (and sometimes even more than full-time) to support themselves (and sometimes their families), leaving little or no time to devote to college studies.

I'd be curious to hear some creative solutions to that problem.

View on HN

This is one of the reasons community colleges exist. I went to a community college for 3 years before transferring (had a kid @ 19), ended up working there, and had my first startup born out of that job.

Almost all of my comp sci courses were at night because the students worked and so did the professors. Our professors were DoD Ada/C programmers at Vandenberg Air Force Base (which was quite awesome having professors with real-world experience).

Community college is a great option for working adults. That's why they have so many night classes (and now online classes). In California it's not free but it's extremely affordable and there are plenty of grants available. Like a University, there are also plenty of on-campus jobs that can work around your schedule (I ended up with a campus job that was funded by a grant and paid 3x minimum wage).

There's also plenty of vocational options as well–the nursing programs at the CCs near me are often impacted because people are getting jobs as soon as they graduate.

My point is, I don't really agree with your premise (granted, the system isn't perfect). If you work full-time, you might not be able to transfer or graduate in exactly 2 years but you can definitely do it.

Note 'impacted' is California jargon for 'super full'.

I went to community college for 12 hours each semester and 6 in the summers while working 40 hour weeks. It was rough but I would stack all my classes on Tuesday/Thursday or Monday/Wednesday and then work the other 5 days at a grocery store.

I did this for over a year and it was definitely rough. I think that's why so few people leave community college for universities. Work and bills and responsibilities stack up and school is usually the easiest one to cut out to make room for others. No one can stop working lest they will not have a place to live or food to eat.

It is very unfortunate because the people that would benefit most from the education end up dropping out while those with family support can push through because they're working less, have financial support, and can afford to take classes over again.

I can't think of an easy solution to this other than offering a stipend for lower income students. Free classes will definitely help though, I think this is fantastic.

I just graduated from Western Governors University. 100% online. It was created for the purpose of allowing those that work full time (hopefully getting real life experience) while working on their education. One thing that helps is that each student has a 'mentor' that calls them every week and holds them accountable to study. Community colleges could do the same thing with some online classes, accountability programs, night classes for those that need face to face. Better programs for gaining credit for work experience. Being able to test out of classes would help a lot (if you read the textbook halfway through the class and feel comfortable, pass a test to prove you know material.) This way you can have more time between classes/semesters, and lets the professor spend more time helping other students.

Is this an accredited university? I dropped out of school in 2007 (quite luckily I might add) and have been itching to go back. This sounds like it'd work really well for me.

Yup. WGU is the first accredited school to use the competency based approach but it is a growing trend in higher education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Governors_University

Let me know if you have any questions about it or want an application waiver, I love answering questions about WGU.

The community college I'm doing sysadmin work for has night classes, internet classes (do at your schedule), and self-paced in-building classes (computerized instruction with an instructor in room) to help folks with full-time jobs and family get their classes done. Also, an on-premise daycare.

I think we should be striving to equip students with the skills they would get at a community college while they're still in high school. You can definitely teach more efficiently, and expecting adults to both support themselves and study full time isn't reasonable.

There is a high school in Nashville (Middle College High School) that is housed at one of the community colleges and is focused on getting kids to graduate high school with as many college credits as possible. Many graduate with an associates.

That's a great step forward. Are they perceived similarly to traditional associates degree holders (who are usually a few years older) by employers?

Employers aren't supposed to consider age when making hiring decisions, but that is a good question.

The program is pretty new, so I am not sure there is much data yet.

Employers are allowed to make hiring decisions based on age as long as the age is less than 45.

Of course legal rules and social rules are different, but I don't see a big media backlash against companies for failing to hire smart 18-year-olds.

I work for a school that has dual-credit courses. The students go to the local community college for those classes. These are not required classes, and the student has to pay for the class and provide their own transportation to the college.

That problem will always exist. But this does elevate one issue, working full-time to support yourself AND pay for education at the same time. The other issue is a tough one. It really depends on their life circumstances. Maybe if people will start living minimalist lyfestyles and be more conservative with their spending, things can change.

>>Maybe if people will start living minimalist lyfestyles and be more conservative with their spending, things can change.

I don't agree that a significant amount of low income people who can't afford college are having that financial problem because they live excessively beyond their means. I also suspect the reason a lot of lower income people are working full time jobs is just as much for health insurance as the actual paychecks.

What if University was free _AND_ health care & small apartments were supplied for those(and family) who qualify for excessive hardship and maintain high GPA?

Anything to raise the average education level of the population I think is a win, even if it has to come from the higher-income taxpayers... as long as data shows that indeed significantly more people end up with degrees.

Diminishing returns apply to education and the US government is spending 1 Trillion/year on education. The current excess of PHD's is harming the US economy by pushing back how far people start working.

That said, I think we would probably be well served by providing free high-school level education for anyone that needs it. AKA any-class available to high school students should have free adult equivalent.

I agree. But I would like the education (classes, materials, etc.) to be separate from the certification of knowledge and skills.

Both should be free (or heavily subsidized), but like in healthcare, we should be paying for outcomes, not services rendered. And we should open things up to allow economies of scale.

Those damn PhD's!!! Ruining this country?!!!!

> I don't agree that a significant amount of low income people who can't afford college are having that financial problem because they live excessively beyond their means.

At the risk of sounding callous, starting a family before you can afford it is living beyond your means.

> Anything to raise the average education level of the population I think is a win

I presume you don't support full-time college (and room and board and healthcare) for anyone on demand. Barring that, we're just discussing funding levels, criteria for eligibility, and metrics for success.

I certainly support healthcare on-demand for anybody in this country.

The point was that the benefits, added together, would function more like free money and less like free school. If you don't apply some eligibility criteria, you would see a massive influx of "students" who want all the freebies.

So? Sometimes people get things they don't deserve, that's life. As a taxpayer, I can live with that tradeoff if it means more opportunities for those who need them.

> At the risk of sounding callous, starting a family before you can afford it is living beyond your means. I don't live in the US so I don't know if this applies to some contexts within the US, but in other contexts a family (partnership with one or more people and raising children) is sometimes a neccessity for survival: you share food and lodging and save money, a shared income, shared tasks and responsibilities and, in the absence of a retirement plan, your children will help you when you get old or sick. Raising children is a tough job so you had better start young, when you still have the energy to juggle the big amount of work that requires.

This is the biggest issue for me. I went to ITT (not getting into that discussion). I have a good job right now and need to work full time. I find that I get filtered out of a lot of job searches for not having a B.S. Since the credits don't transfer to anywhere I would consider attending I'm not sure what to do. I guess the only option is that some universities and local colleges offer online undergad programs. Other than that I don't know where you can go for actual in class learning if you work a standard full time job. The entire "need to work full time and go to school" is how I ended up at private nationally accredited program in the first place and I spent way more money than it would have cost me to go to a community college for 4 years.

Sorry to say, but I don't think the issue is a lack of a BS, but it's that your credential is from ITT. This isn't meant to be demeaning or derogatory, but ITT just isn't a highly regarded institution.

Well I agree to a point but I've been told specifically from some recruiters that It's because I don't have a BS. I honestly think if I had a BS from ITT I would be considered though it would certainly not hold the weight that a real BS would. But there is no way I'm giving that company any more of my money. The funny thing is I have about 10 years of experience now and currently work for IBM (which can't look too bad on a resume).

>I ended up at private nationally accredited program

"Nationally" accredited is scam school code for "not accredited."

Yep. I wish my parents and I would have understood that but we didn't. Although I can't say that I'm doing bad. I just think that I would be doing better if I had a 4 year university or even community college degree. Plus I would have saved money vs a 2 year "degree".

In Denmark, students get a sizable stipend (I heard 1000EUR a month).

A little less than that, but yes, students get a stipend during the period when they're full-time university students (bachelors or masters, up to 6 years maximum). It's currently 2500 DKK (€350) for students who live with parents, and 5850 DKK (€780) for those who don't.

Some details: http://www.su.dk/English/Sider/agency.aspx

There are something like 17 million enrolled higher education students in the US, and with the current exchange rate, that would equal about 24 billion USD in stipends. Not really sure such a thing is politically tractable, not to mention the quality of the product (the degree) varies highly by college.

For reference, it appears Denmark has about 230,000 enrolled college students.

Denmark spends about 0.7% of GDP on the "SU" student support system [1]. The same proportion of American GDP would be $110 billion; $24 billion would be a mere 0.15% of GDP. So I don't think there's a feasibility issue; it's clearly possible to spend as much as 0.7% of GDP on such a scheme. The U.S. has many more students, but also a much larger economy. I agree that such a scheme would be politically difficult to pass in the United States, though. I suspect the U.S. will end up spending a pretty large amount of money anyway, but on a more haphazard scheme rather than direct grants, such as occasional student-loan amnesties, or more heavily subsidized loan interest rates.

[1] Somewhat outdated figures, but I believe still roughly accurate: http://www.sustyrelsen.dk/udst/in_english/cost_of_study/kap4...

But if higher education was already free, why would the poor go to war for corporate America, defending big oil wherever needed around the world ?

Why are you comparing absolute numbers? Eyeballing it, it doesn't seem like the proportion of college students compared to the rest of the population is very different between the two countries.

You are right, they aren't terribly far apart in proportional terms (I had a decimal place off in my initial calculation that threw me off... hadn't had my coffee yet). I agree that this is economically feasible and may even be a good investment, but is probably a no-go given the current state of US politics, i.e., broken.

So, I googled for "24 billion" to get an example of the sort of thing the US government spends that kind of money on without a second thought. I was expecting to find some piece of military hardware. No, it's even more ridiculous:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/16/news/economy/shutdown-econom...

$24bn is the estimated cost (to the economy as a whole, rather than the government as a specific billed item) of the totally unnecessary government shutdown last year. It is literally the amount of money Congress can waste without thinking, or while trying very hard to avoid thinking.

I'm aware of how the government spends on other inane things - my point was that spending the 24B on this is probably not going to happen in the current political climate, regardless of whether or not you think it is a good investment.

I think it would sell well, assuming you're raising someone else's taxes or cutting an unpopular budget line item.

The only taxes you're allowed to raise in the US any more are on poor people.

Which taxes on poor people have been raised?

I was part of the last generation in the UK to get a stipend ("student grant"), although it wasn't that generous and it was over 15 years ago.

We're in desperate need of financial aid programs to fill that gap. Perhaps loans with a forgiveness guarantee sponsored by privates companies?

E.g. go to community college, learn a particular skill set, join a company, and that company pays your loans in the event some set of conditions are met (2 years successful employment at the company afterward, GPA minimum, etc.)

Paying people to pursue an education but they must work for a set number of years for the government or the business that funded their education after they graduate?

Sounds close to indentured servitude.

It is already done in some restricted cases; I have a civilian buddy who still owes the Navy a few more years of work to repay his education. He has described it as indentured servitude.

Technically he could quit and pay back the Navy, but they've been paying him so poorly that doing so would plunge him into debt.

And it's different from borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars that can't be discharged in bankruptcy how?

Or just the first part. Educated residents are beneficial to society, even if they are not working directly for the government.

Furthermore, it is not obvious to me that the government has a use for all the the graduates of all the majors anyway; maybe the State of Tennessee could use a few hundred developers to work on sites and services that are provided/run by the state, but could they find work for all the CS graduates that universities in Tennessee can pump out? Society will value those peoples' skills, so their degrees are not worthless in any meaningful respect, but governments only need so many people in that profession. Maybe you could still hire them and have them do busywork, but that would just be an unnecessary waste of resources that would leave a bad gap in those people's resumes.

> Educated residents are beneficial to society, even if they are not working directly for the government.

In aggregate, maybe. In every case? Certainly not. Spending six figures for someone to get a Ph.d. in Esperanto doesn't seem beneficial to society to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com