Get Schooled

By catlady

June 11, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

Georgia has been pretty backward on this, to the detriment of students and taxpayers. Other states have much better articulation between the 2 and 4 year colleges. When the state does not show leadership, it falls on the colleges to work out agreements like this one. One thing I am uncertain of, after reading the article: the students are guaranteed a seat, but are they guaranteed acceptance into the program they are seeking? THAT is the question, IMHO. If you graduate from Ga Perimeter and have taken the courses that Kennesaw requires of its business majors, will you automatically be accepted into the business program at Kennesaw? Or will you go to some kind of pergatory wait list? Are the “native” students (those who started at Kennesaw) given preference. A seat can mean more or less. What does it mean in this case?

In the mid-1990s (as I recall) Georgia finally adopted common course numbering which was the first step in cutting down some of the time and money wasting that was done when students found that English 101 at Dekalb, for example, would not count as English 101 at Georgia State. So students had to take classes over.

When you recall how much Georgia taxpayers are subsidizing each and every in-state student, this adds up to REAL MONEY.

By jim d

June 11, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

Bridget,

The article fails to mention if elective credits will be transferable if the 4 year university edoesn’t offer the particular electives.

Any information on that?

By Jeff

June 11, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

why should someone who couldn’t cut muster two years ago to get in take a seat from someone who WAS good enough to get in?

If you want an ASSociates, fine, go for it. But don’t decide after two years that you want the Bachelors instead and start taking already-hard-to-come-by seats from those who have shown the drive to persue the tougher track to begin with.

By jim d

June 11, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

Some of these kids may just not be mature enough for a four year program when they graduate high school. Personally I think this could be a big bonus for these students.

1) they may have demonstrated the ability to maintain HOPE.

2) maturity levels should show dramatic increases.

I’m not sure they are stealing a seat, but perhaps are filling it with a student that has demonstrated they are there to learn —not party.

This might be a good thing!

By SET

June 11, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

I agree with Jeff - Jr Colleges are 13th grade for students who couldn’t perform college prep in High School. If there is room for them and they have collected the test scores and class work to sub in as “real” college students, great.

But the 4 year colleges should not water down their standards for the transfer students.

The other thing in CA is that the Jr college students are a different social class than the 4 year students. That’s why the credit card companies of all people make the distinction between the 2 populations in handing out cards. The JC students are less mature, smoke more, have messier personal lives, come from less stable families. The Jr Colleges are largely vocational schools turning out middle class people for service and technical jobs where they work under more supervision than the 4 year graduates. (lower IQ, less mature people would need more supervision in their occupations). These graduates are time-clock punchers that can make $60K to $100K a year - Cops, Nurses, Prison Guards, various Medical Technicians etc. JC students do not travel long distances to go to a school and often live with Mommy and Daddy rather than live at school.

In other words the 2 different programs go for different students with different IQ and abilities that program differently. Some of the JC students can make the jump, but some military enlisted men are identified as stars and sent to the service academies also.

Have no illusions what you are dealing with. The two groups are apples and oranges. Only a small group makes the jump and they won’t be Nobel Prize winners.

By jim d

June 11, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Set,

Fraid we dis on this one.

I’ve seen a lot of 16-17 year old students that had the mental capacity to do the work but just didn’t pocess the maturity for a four year college—flunk out. Why not make it easier for them to gain the maturity needed for a four year program?

By jim d

June 11, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Then there’s the other group that has the grades, and the maturity but lacks the financial means upon high school graduation even with HOPE, that opt for a two year program that allows them to live at home and save the money needed to pay for things like room and board at a 4 year institution.

Should they not be given the oportunity?

By catlady

June 11, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

And then there are folks who, due to familial responsibilities or money worries, have to start at a 2 year college. They CAN get into a 4 year school, but, in order to save money or to help mama take care of grandma, or out of concern that they aren’t ready to “move away”, they stay home for the first 2 years. Many advisors recommend doing that to save money.

Now, in some states, like SET and Jeff say, there is a sharper division between 2 year and 4 year college students. Just as in some states 2 year colleges are much more vocationally oriented. Here in Georgia, we have much more distinction, altho it is lessening, between 2 year colleges and vocational schools, as vocational schools (GDTAE) seek to offer more college-credit classes (those accredited by SACS COC vs COE). Part of this has been stimulated by HOPE, because students were doing some “back door” coursework to get HOPE eligible.

Jeff, a few of our two year colleges are so academically demanding that, when their students transfer to UGA or GA Tech, their grades go UP. Dalton College is one.

The devil in this is in the details. Do the students who take the courses at 2 year colleges have an automatic “in” in the PROGRAM they want? Are they in competition on an equal basis with “native” students? Or do they get any leftover seats?

See, some states (FL) guarantee acceptance into a college for 2 year grads, but they do not guarantee that they will have a place in their program of choice. Of course, we know that some academic programs pick and choose from the brightest and the best anyway, and some let in all comers and let the cream rise to the top and see who graduates.

Details would help determine how “fair” this is. One thing I think we can agree on: we want to spend our taxpayer money on those who can really handle the work, no matter where they started from. We want those graduating to be GOOD at their chosen field, not second-rate.

While we should be realistic, we should not be elitist.

By local student

June 11, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Jeff & SET, I sat next to a guy at Georgia Perimeter who was a recently returned Army Ranger from Iraq. He was taking classes there because he could attend school between his shifts at the Firehouse. I suppose that job, plus his family responsibilities to his wife and small son precluded his attending a big 4 year Besotted On Daddy’s Money University that y’all seem to favor.

Perhaps when your country needs defending, or your house burns down, his less mature self will appear to do the job and pull your head out of your a##es.

After that, maybe he will transfer to a 4-year institution and take a seat from some kid who has taken the tougher road in life. The tougher road of drinking beer, chasing co-eds, and surviving college football games.

Good luck explaining your line of reasoning to him.

By catlady

June 11, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

One thing we overlook here in Georgia: there is a 4 year college that will accept almost any sentient student. Even excluding the private colleges, with their varying degrees of expectations, unless you barely graduated from high school, there is a 4 year college that will take you. Now, do you want to go to it? Well, maybe not. In my mind, the question is not that most 2 year students cannot go to some 4 year college. But, as others have posted, many have other responsibilities that preclude 4 years of “living away”. Some, with good skills, have been given the message that they aren’t good enough, or that going away to school is a betrayal of “their raisin’”. Some are working and saving up their money so they can afford the last 2 years’ extra expense of a room, etc. Let’s face it, most 2 year colleges here in Georgia have flexible scheduling so that working students can still go to school. At some of the 4 years, however, you take what you can get into, in terms of classes.

With HOPE, we have a good number of “substandard” students at 4 year colleges who would have been better served building their skills at a 2 year first. If not, how do you explain the high percentage who dropout after losing HOPE? I don’t think you can explain it all about money, since even without HOPE a student can go to college. SET, I think HOPE skews some of the traditional ways we have thought about 2 year vs 4 year schools and their clientele here in Georgia. That, and our different set up on 2 year and vo-tech vs. junior colleges.

By Ernest

June 11, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Good points raised again by Catlady! I’m somewhat on the fence with this. I’m definitely in favor of providing the incentive to those who work hard in the 2 year school and meet the requirement guidelines for a 4 year school. I also wonder might we see grades ‘compromised’ because this incentive is in place, i.e. what we’ve seen somewhat with HOPE. Unfortunately, there isn’t an accurate predictor of the effort one would take when provided an opportunity like this.

Anyone have insight on 2 year college graduation rates? Bridgett, know where this we can get this information?

By jim from gwinnett

June 11, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

In Georgia, there are two types of community colleges: Technical schools that can not transfer to four year college and regular community colleges that can transfer to four year college. GPC is the later one.

According to GPC, “The three-year graduation rate remained at 10%, and the three-year transfer rate inched up by one percentage point to 16%”. So only 26% students able to take advantage of this opportunities.

This is not big deal IMO, most students who graduated from GPC can probably get into Ga State or Kennesaw State anyway. This agreement just makes the whole process simpler.

By mmm

June 11, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this

The folks that run GPC are realistic and forward thinking. Their numbers have plummeted in recent years as central Dekalb has seen a drop in affluence and increases in refugees and immigrants. Meanwhile, Hope has given a lot of kids false expectations of their own abilities and a seat at a 4-year school from which many crash out.

Substituting in the “turtles” who have diligently put in effort for the “hares” that have skittered off the path makes perfect sense for both 2-year and 4-year colleges, especially given the present situation in Georgia. I’m glad to see this agreement.

By SET

June 11, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this

For the record I support greatly expanding the Jr College system in this state and this nation at the expense of the 4 year colleges. I’m not saying the Universities are “better” - they are for different classes of people. Yes some of the Jr College people make the jump. Some enlisted men become officers in the military also.

Some readers may chose to substitute emotional readings into these affairs and whine racism or whatever when we talk about sorting people by intellectual ability. Go right ahead, whatever floats your boat.

Most people in this country are not bright. We do not need to artificially force round people into square peg holes. The Jr Colleges at least in CA are Vocational Powerhouses that take large numbers of people - average people - and train them to make a middle class living in this Brave New World. They are not research centers.

There is nothing wrong or bad about this approach. But for most people it is 13th grade not college and the students are in no way treated or thought of as the University freshman such as you see at Stanford or University Of CA. And the difference is largely IQ.

We need to see that these schools (Jr College) are fully funded, that is they have seats and programs for our citizens who are ready to attend. The productivity gains for the Jr. College students more than repay the taxpayer investment in these schools. These schools are the primary post HS education of the masses of the workers.

And make no mistake about it. The IQ distributions in the different ethnic groups mean that the racial composition of the Jr. Colleges will look nothing like the University Students. You will have more blacks and mexicans at Jr College, and the University level is dropping to the 1% level for blacks predicted in the Bell Curve debates now that AA is illegal in CA. (Except in basketweaving classes such as black studies). Engineering is mostly Asian at UC.

At the High School level we see roughly 50% of all black males no longer finishing CA high school. This number should increase with any increases in the pass cut-offs of the state graduating exam, now set at 8th grade level. This is an artifact of the brave new world and it doesn’t have to be this way. Even IQs of 85 can be trained better than this.

I would start state industrial high schools - at least on a regional basis - in an effort to manage something with the (largely) black and hispanic HS population that tends to dropouts.

But as long as we pay 12 year old girls to reproduce we will have trouble in the minority areas. It would help lower class management if we turned off the gasoline feeding the fire with our destructive welfare and child support policies. I attribute a destabilizing effect on the lower class to the welfare & child support collection system. It’s another push to not go to school for both males and females. And dumber people don’t control their reproducing very well.

I would eliminate both systems - wipe out any obligation to pay support for bastard children along with any right of access to the children. Cut welfare for single mothers with bastard children. Tell the mothers to marry, get an income, or lose the children to whoever wants them. Allow the new spepfathers to adopt free from the interference of the bioDad. This would result is lower bastardy rates in the lower classes, not the ever higher rates we see now. It wouldn’t be a smooth road like we now have for bastardy. People whould have to go solve their own problems, not get direct deposit for being alive.

When it’s sink or swim time, people take swimming lessons.

Back on point - I don’t care to use the Jr Colleges to promise seats in 4 year colleges. I see the schools as different career tracks with the Jr Colleges Vocational and the 4 year Colleges and Universities more professional with a different class of student. I’d rather shrink the number of 4 year colleges and put much more money in the Jr Colleges. We have too many seats in 4 year colleges and not enough in the 2 years.

It is not a good use of the 4 year colleges to have students there who drop out. I’d rather see higher standards to get into the 4 year colleges in the first place. Like having college level reading and writing scores. UC Berkeley still admits people who are required to take “English A”. ?? Why?

By Jeff

June 11, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

I don’t buy the “4 years away” line.

Reason? As a Kennesaw State Alumni I can EMPHATICALLY state that KSU is a COMMUTER school - even with all the dorms they’ve put in over the past 5 years.

KSU bends over backwards to accomodate those that have to work for a living but still want to go to school. Heck, I don’t know of a SINGLE Master’s class that starts before 5p, and the number of weekend classes or one night a week classes expands every semester.

Going to a 2 year school just to transfer in to a 4 yr school is a TRAVESTY. If you don’t have the cajones to go to the 4 yr school in the first place, don’t bother.

Oh, and as far as 2 yr schools being tougher: I don’t buy it. I’ve seen the work coming out of Highlands and North Metro, and these guys - with CS related degrees - can barely TYPE, much less put a coherent program together.

By jim from Gwinnett

June 11, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

People make too much big deal out of this. From Kennesaw State own web site, Kennesaw State accepted 337 of 390 GPC students who want to transfer at the rate of 86% in 2005. The small percentage of GPC student who didn’t accepted probably didn’t have 2.8 GPA. Like I said, the agreement only make the whole process simpler, not necessarily easier.

By local student

June 11, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

Jeff, I have the cojones (figuratively) to go to KSU; I just don’t live out in the sticks. People who work and have families/lives can’t necessarily drive halfway to the mountains or downtown to GA State for classes.

As far as 2 year schools being tougher, I don’t buy the 4 year schools being tougher either. I’ve seen people with B.A’s, B.S.’s and—God help us all—-Master’s who can’t type a coherent e-mail. That’s why I’m going back to get a degree. I got tired of working for college grads and having to fix their reports so they made sense, or watch them screw things up because they’re just plain stupid and have no ability to think.

SET, call us when the shuttle lands.

By Fulton County Mom

June 11, 2007 5:15 PM | Link to this

KSU Alum myself. I worked 2 jobs (sometimes 3) and went to school PT to get that BS. As I understand it many of their Masters programs offer online classes, more and Universities are looking at that. Additionally, Emory has a MBA that is accelerated (if you qualify) that is 2 days every other week (or is it 3?).

Not everyone is cut out for College, a 2 yr with a transfer if you prove you are College material (3.5 or better in a 2yr) is cool. However just as I do not agree with granting Hope to the dope who scrapes by in HS I do not agree with garunting space to the 2yr even if they make the 3.5 (yes I know they said 2.8…thats still a C average!)

By high school teacher

June 12, 2007 8:16 AM | Link to this

Oh, and as far as 2 yr schools being tougher: I don’t buy it.

I don’t know, Jeff. When I was at UGA, I met several transfers from Young Harris. They were decidedly brighter than some of the administrators I have met in the last few years, and those admins have specialists degrees from four year institutions.

By Jeff

June 12, 2007 8:39 AM | Link to this

Here’s something I could agree to:

Equate a 3.5 2 yr college GPA to a 4.0 HS GPA. From a 2 yr school, NO ONE with less than a 3.0 is eligible to transfer in, and NO ONE from ANY school is “garaunteed” a seat. Level the playing field for ALL. Give NO ONE advantages.

By EducatorX3

June 12, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

I have to defend the rigor in some of our 2 year institutions. Teaching at the university level, I have students who transfer from several 2 year schools. Most of them are well prepared, hard-working, and ready to begin their major work when they come to my class. Of course there are some who aren’t…and there are some who have been on our campus for the first two years who fall in the category of “unprepared” as well. I think it depends on the student and their desire to be successful.

Like many of you have said, there are many life circumstances that make the 2 year schools more practical. When I first returned to school I attended a 2 year school because it was closer to home, less expensive, and had a great reputation for preparing students for completing their degrees. As a non-traditional student all of these things were important. I could take classes and still be home to pick my kids up at the end of their school day.

I would argue with those who believe that everyone attending 2 year schools, or everyone who gets an associates degree is some how less intelligent or capable. Yes, Jeff, I could have gone to KSU…even though I don’t have cajones! I was even offered a scholarship to a much more prestigious school. But I had a family to consider. Since I now have three more degrees - including a PhD - from two research universities, I don’t buy into your theory about lack of ability.

Catlady has hit the mark. There are still some unanswered questions here. However, I think they are on the right track. I know there is much discussion about the alignment of courses throughout the university system. Many of our courses have common descriptions and requirements across all units in the system. For many majors, there will be no major differences between those who started at two year schools and those who started at four year schools.

Just my thoughts.

By luvs2teach

June 12, 2007 6:24 PM | Link to this

I have a very good friend, full PhD, who teaches at GPC. She chose to work there rather than a research university (although she certainly has the ability - and job offers) because she wanted to teach more than she wanted to research. Her classes (physics and astronomy) are very rigorous, and she takes what she does very seriously. I like to believe that she is the rule, rather than the exception.

For many non-traditional students, the choice of colleges to attend doesn’t usually come down to cajones but commute - and I think there are many students at GPC who are there because it’s closer than the other traditional commuter schools.

I think a qualified student is a qualified student - no matter which route s/he takes. I would rather see a KSU seat go to a 24 year old GPC student with a 2.8, than an 18 year old with partying on the brain. I would however qualify the 2.8 GPA as being in transferable classes.