This is what George Boggs, president and CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges, said in response to Chicago rethinking its open-admissions policy for its community college system.
I'd like to think that Mr. Boggs is altruistic. I know better.
Here at Large Dead-City Community College, we at least are discussing our inability to meet the needs of every person with a pulse who wants to enroll at LD3C. Like most other Rust Belt CCs, our enrollment has been padded in recent years with nontraditional students who have lost their jobs and obeyed President Obama's call to enroll in community college. Many of these students--many of all of our students--are fine individuals who are capable of doing the work necessary to succeed in college.
Many others, however, will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever succeed in college. Ever. Some barely made it through high school twenty years ago; some barely made it through high school this year. Some have cognitive disabilities that will prevent them from doing college-level work, ever. The students who fail the same developmental classes repeatedly will never be able to do college-level work. Ever.
I am sickened by the Mr. Boggses of the world who willingly endorse taking the money of people who will never be able to earn degrees--or the money of taxpayers in the form of grants for some of the same student population. I am often saddened, too, by some of the students in my classes who try so hard only to fail repeatedly.
The idea that everyone can receive a college education is both noble and stupid. Not everyone can do college-level work, and if we dumb down the general college curricula, college itself becomes meaningless.
I am not saying that the students in my classes who will not complete college--those who may never pass a single course--do not benefit in some way from being in a college classroom; I'm sure they do benefit from the experience itself, in some way. If, however, the prevailing entitlement ideology--"Community college has always been an open door for college," said Boggs. "We have taken everybody."--becomes a license to make college more like our failed K-12 system, then I'm out.
What do you all think?
Great Lakes, Greta!
ReplyDelete:-)
You are right.
Except for your assertion that, "I'm sure they do benefit from the experience itself, in some way."
What makes you so sure?
As a former CC student that transferred to a four year uni, I have seen what goes on at the typical CC. At CC, the failure is with Advising. They will sign off on anything. "You're a single mom working as a waitress with a GED that wants to become an RN? You'll need to remediate in math and reading, but that's what were here for."
ReplyDeleteI've said before (some may recall), I started at a CC. By the end of my 1st semester, over 1/2 (almost 2/3) of my ENG 101 class had disappeared. They either dropped the class, got dropped (for lack of attendance?), or realized they needed to do something else (like take a remedial course first). I never got the impression the school coddled anyone.
ReplyDeleteFast-forward about 10 years to my first teaching jobs at Safety School U. Many majors had instituted specific courses to teach remedial writing (grammar, paragraphing, thesis statements, citations, etc.) because they were realizing their majors weren't learning it in high school or ENG 101 (or at least weren't retaining it).
Guess who got to teach THOSE classes? At first, the students seemed to take it in stride -- they needed to learn this stuff and either sucked it up and buckled down or switched majors. Within another 5 years, class sizes increased by 25-50% (with those extra seats filled by people who seemed to be either functionally illiterate or completely disaffected about education), no one was allowed to fail (too many Fs or Ds and you wouldn't be rehired), and students who refused to do the work got "excused" from the requirement or had their grades inflated on appeal. The change seemed to occur right alongside No Child Left Behind. Think there's a connection?
All of this sounds like the tech school where I used to teach. It accepted anyone that lived and breathed with the only academic requirement being the ability to pay fees. (Economic downturns were an endless source of joy to the administration as it meant that it would receive more applications from people who had either lost their jobs or were seeking retraining.) The result was that I, too, had my share of people who were functionally illiterate or who were told by the counselling office that their backgrounds were sufficient to get them through their chosen areas of study.
ReplyDeleteActual ability was unimportant as it was, of course, given to understand that everybody who enrolled was supposed to pass. The instructors complained about this many times, suggesting that the institution put pressure on the high schools to ensure that its graduates were better prepared. Instead, we were told to refer anyone with difficulties to the in-house tutoring centre where they could get assistance--for a fee, of course. That referral was, however, considered to be a last resort as we were expected to fill in those academic gaps for those students in addition to our regular teaching duties. (I once suggested that, to avoid many of these problems, applicants be required to write some sort of entrance exam. I received a few tongue-lashings for that at I was told by at least one person there that something like that was "elitist".)
Little wonder that, at the beginning of each term, I made a count-down list in which I marked off how many weeks were left until summer vacation.
This is not just a problem with CC's--the accepted practice for most "for-profit" universities is to offer admission to unqualified individuals, get them (massive) student loans, and then roll in the dough.
ReplyDeleteRecently, I had occasion to meet a man who had attended a local for-profit school. This man had had a very difficult life, including a lot of abuse and gang violence. He was amazed and happy that there was a college out there that accepted him into their program. You wanna know the real kicker? HE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A GED AT THE TIME. This school accepted him and allowed him to take college courses WHILE he earned his GED (at the age of 23).
Two years later, he emerged with a GED, one Associate's degree, and over $20,000 of debt.
The last I heard, he was applying for work at McDonald's. I doubt he will ever get out from under the debt caused by one Associate's degree.
This last year was okay, but the previous year was horrible. I had a herd of return to schools that were angry, scared and ill-prepared. Many worked in factories for tier 2/3 suppliers to the Big 3 (as you go by Great Lakes Gerta, it's possible we work @ the same CC). I felt sorry for these people, my dad did his 30 yrs in the Big 3, but so many just didn't seem that interested.
ReplyDeleteFor many, despite years of working jobs that several stated they disliked, the idea of school was worse than their old job. It seems they were people who really didn't want to go to college, and had been fortunate enough to find factory jobs with okay pay. So for them, that life was enough (which is fine by me). Going back at this point in their lives, some in their 40's and 50's, was a kind of punishment. So they often took it out on me. Add to that loss of study, learning and test taking skills, and it was a hard couple of semesters.
These return to schools are on top of the 17, 18 and 19 yr olds that barely made it out of HS. It would be sad to say that it was only the kids from the failing districts, but even the kids from the "better" suburban schools seem to have no skills. Not to mention the half dozen letters from student services that I get allowing some of them 2x the normal test time. That could mean as much as 4 to 6 hours of test time. Are they ever going to get that extra time, in an "undistracted" environment while employed? Do you want a nurse that "can't be distracted" while on their shift? Not me.
Harder for me, I teach pre-nursing, pre-allied health courses. Everybody wants to be a nurse, and the competition gets worse every year. This means everyone one MUST get an A, or else they don't get into their program of choice (usually nursing) and the world ends. I had a woman sobbing in the hall on the after the final because she was going to receive a B+ (which believe you me, was a bit of a gift). I get the good, the bad, and the stupid all in the quest for the BIG MONEY an RN can make out of the gate. Not that they would be any good, not that they would really like it and provide great patient care. No, it's the fat cash for only a two year degree they seek.
Students will always suprise me, and yes, sometimes to the good. About half care enough to show, a quarter really care, and a quarter could care less (and God do I love to put their grade in the system). In the end, with increasing student populations and decreasing budgets, we must need a higher standard to allow us to use our resources well.