Loading...
Title :
link :
California’s Push for ‘Free’ Community College Is Misguided
Just when you thought California couldn’t ask any more of its taxpayers, the state Legislature is pushing for two years of “free” community college for all residents, regardless of income.
California already has several existing programs to subsidize students who attend community college. Almost half of California’s community college student population has taken advantage of the state’s California College Promise Grant since 1985, which covers all application fees.
Last year, lawmakers passed a bill making the first year of community college free. This latest proposal would put taxpayers on the hook to cover the second year, subsidizing all students—even the sons and daughters of the Hollywood elite—to attend community college in the state tuition-free.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, inaugurated Jan. 7, campaigned on the promise of “free” tuition and claims that removing the burden of tuition will encourage students to stay enrolled and finish faster.
Unfortunately, California’s plan to make it possible for students to attend community college tuition-free is riddled with problems that would be a great disservice to the residents of the state.
The most glaring problem with California’s free community college plan is clearly the cost.
California is already a high-tax state, with the highest income tax rate in the country at 13.3 percent. Currently, the state has appropriated $46 million to cover just one year of community college and roughly the same amount is expected to cover the second year.
Second, subsidizing all students, regardless of income level, who attend community college will simply serve to extend the K-12 education system into a K-14 system.
The education system once successfully equipped students with the skills necessary to enter the workforce, and particularly gifted or those interested in an academic track continued on to college. However, now that college attendance has become more commonplace—even expected—high schools no longer make workforce preparation their top priority.
The guarantee of two more years of education will simply spark further degree inflation. A community college degree will become the new baseline, much like the high school diploma once was.
Finally, public spending on community college has been shown to be a risky investment at best.
For low-income students, Pell Grants almost entirely cover the cost of community college tuition. Yet, graduation rates remain remarkably low. Only 45 percent of students obtain any degree or certificate six years after starting their two-year program.
While some have argued that community college graduation rates are low because many students transfer to four-year schools, only 17 percent do so and complete their degree.
More and more Americans are calling for solutions to the astronomical $1.5 trillion student debt crisis. Reforming the outdated accreditation system that stifles innovation or reducing reliance on federal aid would go a long way in achieving meaningful reform.
However, “free” college will do nothing to address the causes of rising costs, and simply leave Americans with more paper credentials.
Simply obtaining a degree—assuming students graduate—does not necessarily translate to increased job preparedness. It can, however, directly translate to more public debt.
Americans deserve more thoughtful policy solutions to the cost crisis in higher education than faux “free” college. California’s proposal to transfer the community college tuition bill to taxpayers will do nothing to address the root causes of both tuition and degree inflation.
Instead, policymakers should encourage competition and innovation by reducing regulatory burdens for streamlined educational alternatives, such as vocational/career and technical training and apprenticeship programs.
SOURCE
UK: Oxford ends women-only fellowship after university rules that it breaches equality law
Oxford has ended its women-only fellowship after the university’s administrators said it breached equality law.
The Joanna Randall-MacIver junior research fellowship, established in the 1930s for women studying fine arts, music or literature, was deemed to be “discriminatory on the grounds of gender” by Oxford’s Council.
This is the first time that the university has opened up a historically female-only fellowship to male applicants, and the move has prompted a backlash from previous recipients.
The decision means that other research fellowships could be under threat, including those run by Cambridge's female-only college Newnham. The College say that its women-only appointments comply with the Equality Act.
Professor Elizabeth Cullingford, a Randall-MacIver fellow in the 1970s who is now chair of English at Texas University, said: “I feel pretty strongly that having one or two things that are special to woman aren’t going to threaten any great power structure at Oxford.
“The history there is totally male – for years women couldn’t even be in the university and couldn’t be fellow of a college.”
She said that women do still have some “catching up” to do with men, adding: “We may have parity in numbers but do we have parity on power? I doubt that. I am the first female chair of the English department and Texas University has been around since the 19th century.”
The fellowship is funded by the estate of British-born archaeologist and Oxford graduate David Randall-MacIver, who set it up in his wife Joanna's name after her death in 1932 and stipulated that it should only be awarded to female academics.
Former recipients include Jennifer Mundy, The Tate's head of Art Historical Research, and Georgina Herrmann OBE, an eminent archaeologist and the first woman to discover the Afghanistan’s Lapis Lazuli mines in the 1960s.
Alexandra Wilson, a professor of music and cultural history at Oxford Brookes, said that her Randall-MacIver fellowship in 2004 transformed her career in academia.
“These posts are like gold dust, they are highly competitive. When I was applying it was very common to find music departments that were entirely male. Things have improved, but possibly not to full equality,” she told The Daily Telegraph.
“I do think it’s a rather regrettable consequence of a well-intended law that this opportunity for women should be removed.”
Another former recipient, now in her 80s, said: "I would like to see it continuing as women only because I think it is sometimes quite tough for women - less tough than it used to be, but it’s nice to have one or two things that are women only.
“On the other hand I am not sure it has swung rather far the other way. I don’t really like positive discrimination, I think that’s insulting. We can stand on our own feet and fight our corner.”
Under the Employment Equality Act 2010, employers are not permitted to advertise or recruit to posts open to one gender only.
There are exceptions to this which allow for “positive action” to be taken in favour of a particular group if they are underrepresented in the relevant field of work.
Catherine Casserley, a barrister at Cloisters Chambers and one of the country’s leading experts in discrimination law, said that any institutions which have women-only fellowships will now have to reconsider. She said: "What universities are going to have to do is look at their scholarships and fellowships see whether legally, in light of the Equality Act, they can offer them to only one gender and see whether exceptions or positive action provisions applies.”
A spokesman for Oxford University said: “As a consequence of the [Employment Equality] Act, Oxford University has changed the terms of a number of historically-created trusts so they are no longer gender-specific. The Randall-MacIver Fellowship is the most recent example. “The University is very much aware of the lack of women in academic roles at many levels and is working to end the imbalance as a priority.
“Several initiatives to promote equality, including strengthened recruitment processes and professional development programmes for female academics, are now well-established and beginning to show an impact at all levels, including professorial posts.”
SOURCE
Australia: Teachers won't be allowed to take classes if they fail English and maths exams
Teachers will soon have to pass a literacy and numeracy test to prove they can read, write and solve maths problems before they're allowed in the classroom.
All aspiring teachers in Australia will have to take the formal exam from next year and must pass it within three attempts.
In Victoria, about five per cent of working teachers failed or were yet to sit the test, but were allowed to remain in the classroom provided they passed within two years.
But the state government announced this week that from this month, all aspiring teachers who don't pass the test won't be registered.
SOURCE
thus Article
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article with the link address https://onechildsmart.blogspot.com/2019/01/californias-push-for-free-community.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment