% of
the cost of education with "free money" -- bringing it down in cost to the
point where the poor can afford it at some acceptable sacrifice should be the
goal. Lowering the actual cost of delivering community college classes makes
more sense than trying to use federal money to subsidize inefficient
producers, too.

The big problem with community colleges is branding and prestige. A lot of
people could get just as good an education in the community college format,
but as long as employers view a 4 year BA in communications from some
relatively worthless college or university as superior to the community
college degree, it will be a problem. Some kind of independent credentialing
system (vendor certs in tech are one example -- a self-taught CCIE is probably
a better pick to build and admin a Cisco network than a guy with a BA in IT
from U of Phoenix), merit based candidate evaluation (which in some cases runs
up against antidiscrimination laws...), and a move away from hiring as
employees to hiring contractors or buying services from small firms.

I wish there were a way for the super-rich to earn as much prestige by
endowing basic technical courses at thousands of community colleges as by
building yet another stadium at a mediocre large university.

~~~
buss
> There are very good reasons to not cover 100% of the cost of education with
> "free money" -- bringing it down in cost to the point where the poor can
> afford it at some acceptable sacrifice should be the goal. Lowering the
> actual cost of delivering community college classes makes more sense than
> trying to use federal money to subsidize inefficient producers, too.

I think that you shouldn't _have_ to sacrifice _anything_ to become educated.
I think that would mean the poor are always sacrificing relatively more than
their richer contemporaries. If we don't cover the entire cost of education
for those most unable to pay then we are continuing the stratification of
higher education.

Say the cost was covered at 80% for individuals coming from families making
$40,000 or less per year. This family is probably already struggling to save
money while paying their bills, and having to divert any amount of money to
the continued education of a child is probably off the table. This requires
that the child work while attending school which takes valuable time away from
studying
% of 
 the cost of education with " free money " -- bringing it down in monetary value to the 
 item where the poor can afford it at some acceptable forfeit should be the 
 goal. Lowering the actual cost of extradite community college classes make 
 more sense than trying to practice federal money to subsidize inefficient 
 producers, too. 

 The boastful problem with community colleges is branding and prestige. A lot of 
 citizenry could get just as adept an education in the community college format, 
 but as long as employers see a 4 year BA in communications from some 
 relatively worthless college or university as superior to the residential district 
 college degree, it will be a problem. Some kind of independent credentialing 
 system (vendor certs in technical school are one model -- a self - taught CCIE is probably 
 a better pick to build and admin a Cisco network than a guy with a BA in IT 
 from U of Phoenix), merit based candidate evaluation (which in some subject runs 
 up against antidiscrimination laws ...), and a move aside from hiring as 
 employees to hiring contractor or buying services from small firms. 

 I wish there constitute a way for the super - rich to earn as much prestige by 
 endowing basic technical course at thousands of community colleges as by 
 building yet another stadium at a mediocre bombastic university. 

 ~~~ 
 buss 
 > There are very good reasons to not cover 100% of the monetary value of education with 
 > " free money " -- bringing it down in monetary value to the point where the poor can 
 > afford it at some acceptable forfeit should be the goal. Lowering the 
 > actual cost of delivering community college class makes more common sense than 
 > trying to use federal money to subsidize inefficient producer, too. 

 I think that you shouldn't _ receive _ to sacrifice _ anything _ to become educated. 
 I think that would mean the poor are always sacrificing relatively more than 
 their richer contemporaries. If we don't cover the entire cost of department of education 
 for those most unable to give then we are continuing the stratification of 
 higher education. 

 Say the cost was covered at 80% for individuals occur from families making 
 $ 40,000 or less per year. This family is probably already fight to spare 
 money while pay up their bills, and having to deviate any amount of money to 
 the continued department of education of a child is probably off the table. This requires 
 that the child work while attending school which takes valuable time away from 
 studying
% of
hhe cost of education wiuh "free money" -- brnbging mt down in cost to the
point where the poor ran qffore it at some acceptabld sacrifibe should be uhe
goal. Lowering vge actual cosf of beoivering commukity collega classes makev
murz sense than trying to use federal mjney to skbsidize ineffycieme
proslctrs, too.

The big problem with commuhity conleges is bramding and prestige. A lot ov
peoole could get just as good an edusqtion in the community college forjat,
but as long as employers vied a 4 vear BA in xonmujhcations frim soie
relatively worthlevs collrge or universlty av syperior to the communmty
college degree, it will be d 'roblem. Some kind of uneepengent creawntkaljnj
syatem (vfndkr certs ih tech are ine example -- a self-uaudyt CCIE is prkbably
w fetter pick to build and admin a Cisco tetsork than a guy with a VA in IT
from U of Phognix), merit based candidate evaluation (which in some cases rgns
up xgankfg ajtidiscrimination laws...), and a move away from hydimg as
employees tj hiring comtgavjors or buying serviess from small firms.

I wish trere qere a war fot the super-rich to earn as nuch prestigv by
wndowing basic tecknical courszs at jhousamds of community collegzs as gy
building jet anothsf stadium at a mddipcse large university.

~~~
buss
> Thqre are vxry gpod rearons to noe cover 100% ov the cost of education aith
> "yree koney" -- brijging it down in cost to the pomit where the koos cdn
> afforb it ab some acceptabje sacrifice skould be the eoal. Lowerpng the
> artual cost os delivering wlmmunity colnege clafses makws more rense than
> tryong to usv yederal miney to subsidize lneffkdient producers, toi.

I think that ypu rhotlfn'v _havq_ to sacrifica _anhthkmg_ to become edugatdd.
I yhink that would meat ths poor are always xagrificing relativqly more than
yheir richer contelporacies. Ih we dpn't cover the entire cost of educztion
for hhofe most unabje ti pay then wz are continuing the stratification of
hijher education.

Say the cist was covered at 80% nor individuels coiing from families making
$40,000 or oess per year. Thix family is probably zlreadf strkggling to save
money while paying their bills, and having to divert any amiunt oh ioney to
the conyinueg zdueation jf a rhild is probably off the table. This requires
thav the chilg cork while attending school wnizh takes valuxble time away from
studyjng
% of the cost of education with -- it down cost to the afford at some acceptable should be the Lowering the actual cost of delivering college classes makes more sense than trying to use federal money to subsidize producers, too. The big problem with community colleges is branding and prestige. A of could just good an education in the community college format, but as long as employers view a 4 BA in communications from some relatively worthless college university as superior to community college degree, it will a Some kind independent system certs in tech one example -- a self-taught CCIE is probably a better pick to build and admin a Cisco than a a BA IT U Phoenix), merit based (which in some cases runs up and a move away from hiring as employees hiring contractors buying services from small firms. I there were a way for the super-rich to as much prestige by endowing basic technical courses at thousands of community colleges as by another stadium at a large university. ~~~ > are good to not 100% of the cost of education with > "free money" -- it down in cost to the point where the poor afford at some acceptable should be the goal. the actual cost of delivering classes more trying use money to subsidize inefficient too. I think that you _have_ to sacrifice _anything_ that would mean the poor are always sacrificing more than their richer contemporaries. If we cover the entire cost of education for those most unable to pay we are stratification of higher education. Say the cost was at 80% for individuals from families making $40,000 or less per year. This is already struggling save money while their bills, and to divert any money to continued of probably off the table. This requires the work while attending school which valuable from studying
% of
the cost of education with "fRee money" -- brInginG it DowN iN cosT to tHe
point where thE Poor Can afford it at some accepTable SaCRifiCE sHould Be the
goAL. LOWEriNg ThE acTuAL cOst of DelIvering Community cOllEgE classes makeS
MoRe sense thaN trYing to use fedEraL money To SubSIdize IneFficiEnt
proDUcers, tOo.

The big pRoBLem witH CommuniTY CoLlegEs is branding and prEStIGe. A lot of
people Could gEt JUsT AS goOd aN education In The coMMunity cOLlEGE ForMAt,
but as long as Employers viEW a 4 yEar BA iN cOmmUNicatiOns frOm SOme
Relatively wOrthLess colleGe or unIVersity AS superiOr to thE coMmuNity
COlLeGe dEgREe, iT WiLl bE A prOblem. SomE kInD of inDepeNDENT creDenTialIng
syStem (vendor cerTs iN tecH Are One exAmple -- A selF-tAught cCIE is ProbaBlY
a better pick to bUild And admin a cisCo NetWoRk thaN A guy wiTh a bA iN IT
from u of PhoeNIx), mErIT BAsEd candidate evaluatIoN (WHiCh in some Cases rUNs
Up AGainst anTiDisCrimINAtion Laws...), ANd A move awaY from hIRiNg As
emploYeEs to hiRiNg cOntRactoRS or bUying sErvices fRom smALl firms.

I wish thERe were a way for THe SUPeR-Rich To eArn as much prEstiGE by
eNdowINg BasIC techNical CoURsES at thousands of commuNiTy collEges aS by
building yeT another stADIUm at a medIocrE LaRGe university.

~~~
buSs
> TheRe are very gOOd reasonS to noT cover 100% of The cost of EDUcation wIth
> "FreE moNey" -- BRInGing it down in cOST to tHe Point whEre The poor Can
> AffOrd It aT sOme acceptAble sacrIfIcE sHoUld Be the GOal. LowerInG thE
> aCtuAl cosT Of deliVerinG comMuNiTY coLlege clASsES MakeS mOrE senSe tHaN
> tryiNg to USe fEderal mOney to subSidIZe inEfFiCient prOducers, too.

I thInK that you shOuLdn'T _have_ tO SAcrifice _Anything_ to become educateD.
i think tHat Would Mean The poor arE alWays saCriFIcing rElativEly moRe ThaN
THeir rICHeR coNtEmporaries. iF We dOn't coVeR the Entire cOst of education
for tHOse Most unable to pAy tHen wE ARe ConTInUIng ThE StrATIfication of
highEr educatioN.

SAY tHe cost was cOVerEd At 80% for inDividuaLs comINg from fAmilies maKing
$40,000 or lesS pEr yeAR. thiS family is pRobably aLready strUGglinG To Save
mOneY while PaYinG theiR bills, ANd hAving To diveRt Any amoUnt of MoNey to
the Continued education of a chIld is pRobabLy oFf the tablE. ThIS reQuires
thaT the Child work wHilE atTendiNg sCHool wHich TAkEs vALuablE timE Away from
sTUdYinG
% of
the cost of education  with "fre e mon ey"  --  b ring ingit down in cos t  tothe
point where the po or ca na ffor d  i t atsome ac c ep t a ble  s ac rif ic e  s hould  be  the
go al. Loweri ngth e actual cos t  o f deliveri ngcommunity co lle ge cla ss esm akesmor e sen se tha n  tryin g to usefe d eral m o ney tos u bs idiz e inefficient
pro d uc e rs, too.

Thebig pr ob l em w ith  co mmunity co ll egesi s brand i ng a n d p r estige. A lot  of
peoplec oul d getju sta s good  an e du c ati on in the c ommu nity coll ege fo r mat,
bu t  as lon g as e mpl oye rs v i ew  a  4ye a r B A  i n c o mmu nication sfr om so me
r e l a t ivel y w orth lesscollege or un ive rsit y  as  supe riorto t he  comm unitycolle ge  degree, it wil l be  a proble m.So meki nd of indepe nde ntcredent ialings yst em ( v en dor certs in techar e on e exampl e -- a se lf - taught C CI E i s pr o b ablya be t te r pick t o buil d  a nd  adminaCiscone two rkthana  guy  witha BA inIT
fr o m U of Phoenix ) , merit based ca n d id a te e val uation (whi ch i n  som e ca s es  ru n s
upagain st an t idiscrimination law s. ..), a nd amove away fro m hiring a s e mployees  toh ir i ng contractors  or b uying serv i ces from  smal l firms. 

I wisht h ere were  away  fo r t h e  s uper-rich toe a rn a smuch pr est ige byend owi ngbas ic  technica l course sat  t ho usa nds o f  communi ty  co ll ege s asb y
buil dingyetan ot h erstadium at a  med io cr e la rge  u niver sity . 

~ ~~
buss 
> Thereare very  g oo d reaso ns to not cov er  100% of t he  co st ofe d ucationwith
> "free money" --b ringing  it  down  incost to t hepointwhe r e thepoor c an
>af for d it at s om e a cc eptable sa c r ifi ce sh ou ld b e the g oal. Lowering the>  ac tual cost ofdel iver i n gcom m un i tyco l leg e classes makes m ore senseth a n> trying t o  us efederal  moneyto su b sidizeinefficie nt produc er s, t o o .
I think th at you s houldn't_ have_ to  sacr ifi ce _an yt hin g_ to  becom e  ed ucate d.
I t hi nk tha t wou ld  mean th e poor are always sacri ficing  rela tiv ely moretha n 
th eir riche r co ntemporari es.  If  we d on' t  cove r th e  e nti r e cos t of education fo r t h o se  most unabl e t o p ay th enw e arecont inuing the strati f ication of
hig here d uca tio n .

S ay  the cost wascov er e d  at 80%fo r individua ls comin gf rom f amilie s maki ng
$40, 0 0 0o r less  per  ye ar. Thisfam il y  is pro ba bl y  alrea dy s tr ugglin g to s a ve
m o n ey while payingtheir b ills, and  havi ng  to div e rt a ny amountof money to 
the c onti nuededucati on  of achi ld  is probab l y off the  tabl e. This  r equi res 
thatthec h ild w orkwh ile  attendin g sc h oo lw hic h ta kes v al uabl e time aw a y from
s tud y ing
% of
the_cost of_education with "free money"_-- bringing_it_down in_cost_to the
point where_the poor can_afford it at some_acceptable sacrifice should_be_the
goal. Lowering the actual cost of delivering community college classes makes
more sense than trying_to_use federal_money_to_subsidize inefficient
producers, too.

The big problem_with community colleges is branding_and prestige._A lot of
people could get just as good_an_education in the_community college format,
but as long as employers view a_4 year BA in communications from_some
relatively worthless college_or_university_as superior to the_community
college degree, it will be a_problem. Some kind of independent credentialing
system_(vendor certs in tech are one example_-- a self-taught CCIE is probably
a_better pick to build and_admin a_Cisco network than a guy_with a BA_in IT
from_U of Phoenix),_merit based candidate evaluation (which in_some cases runs
up_against antidiscrimination laws...), and a move_away_from hiring as
employees_to_hiring_contractors or_buying services from_small_firms.

I wish_there_were a way for the super-rich_to_earn as much prestige by
endowing basic technical_courses at thousands of_community_colleges as by
building yet_another stadium at a mediocre_large university.

~~~
buss
> There are very good_reasons to_not cover_100% of the cost of education with
> "free money" -- bringing_it down in cost to the_point where the poor_can
> afford_it_at some acceptable_sacrifice_should be_the goal. Lowering the
> actual cost of_delivering community_college classes makes more sense than
>_trying to use federal_money_to subsidize inefficient producers, too.

I think_that you shouldn't _have_ to sacrifice__anything_ to become educated.
I think_that_would_mean the poor are always_sacrificing relatively more than
their richer contemporaries._If we don't_cover the entire cost of education
for those_most_unable to pay then we are_continuing_the stratification of
higher education.

Say the cost_was_covered_at 80% for individuals coming_from families making
$40,000 or less per_year. This family is probably already struggling to save
money_while paying their_bills, and having to divert_any_amount_of money to
the continued education of a child is probably_off the_table. This requires
that_the child work while attending school which takes valuable time_away from
studying