June 2, 2008--Shortchanged Again

First a little history.

Community colleges, then called junior colleges, began as just that—junior versions of four-year colleges. Early in the 20th Century they were established as extensions of high schools and offered the first two years of a college education. Those students who completed their freshman and sophomore studies and aspired to complete a bachelor’s degree needed to transfer as juniors to senior colleges.

Among the strongest advocates for the creation of junior colleges were senior colleges that wanted to purge themselves (that’s the word they used—purge) of general education offerings so they could concentrate on transforming themselves into American versions of European universities. These emerging universities would then be able to focus on research and advanced studies,

After the Second World War and the GI Bill, which provided college scholarships for millions of returning veterans, millions of non-veterans also desired to attend college so as to prepare themselves to be viable in the post-war economy.

State higher education systems were thus confronted with a conundrum—how to expand college opportunities without having to shoulder the expense of expanding existing four-year institutions or creating new ones. Most came to the conclusion that it would be cheaper to see most new enrollees go to community colleges. So literally hundreds of new ones were established, most within commuting distance so states would not have to incur the additional expense of building dormitories.

By the end of the 1960s, more than half of first-time freshman were beginning at community colleges, and by the end of the 70s disproportionate percentages of low-income and minority students were attending two-year colleges.

But if one looked carefully at how these students were faring, especially those who aspired to college degrees, there was significant evidence that students who began in junior colleges were being shortchanged—there was at least a 25 percent lower degree completing rate for academically equivalent students who began their studies at community colleges as compared with those who began at senior colleges.

This continues to be true—

• Most students still begin at community colleges

• Low-income and students of color continue to be disproportionately enrolled

• There is still a disadvantage to community college students seeking to earn bachelor’s degrees

To make things worse, the New York Times today reports that banks that have been the major source of student loans, banks such as Citibank, are retreating from offering these loans to community college students because they can make more money and more easily by offering assistance to four-year college students. (Article linked below.)

This, they claim, is because loans to senior college students tend to be larger (thus there is less administrative work), they can charge more interest, and since four-year college students make more money during their lifetime they default at a lower rate.

In addition to the socially regressive consequences of this shift in policy, since the interest and principal on the loans are fully protected by the federal government, the banks’ argument, to be kind, is at best disingenuous.

As a consequence, two-year college students who already tend to be older, take more time to complete courses, and for the most part have at least one before or after-school job, will now face other hurdles while they attempt to attend what had in the past been called People’s or Democracy’s Colleges.