The debate that i have found is that community colleges are good in the sense that they save you money by allowing you to take the classes that you would be taking at any other school for the first two years. Community colleges give you time to figure out what you want to do with your life and what you want to major in before waisting all your money at a place that doesn't offer what you want. The other side of this argument is that it is harder for students to succeed in four year instituions when coming from a community college because there preparation and background knowledge is not the same. Students seem to struggle in courses that are required such as expositroy writing 101 which demonstrates that although you saved money it may not be helping you in the future because you may have to stay extra time to finish credits and may not get the degree in the amount of time that you would like. Another problem is that not all credits from community colleges transfer to four year institutions which was a waste of your time and money for taking classes that will only hurt you in the long run. The writers that i have found that identify this debate are Brouke, who demonstrates the usage of promoting community college in fictional works, Laman, who demonstrates the transfer process for that of students tranfering here from community colleges. The author of Comparing the academic process of native and transfer students gives statistics of the success rate of transfer students. There are many books that seem as if they will help me, but i have not yet had a chance to read them.
The different sides focus on different aspects of the problem in the way that if one side was right then the other would not have any support. It is either that community college acts as an aid for four year schools or it is not. It is whether or not in the long run community college is as beneficial as it is promoted to be. One side of the debate sees the argument as if community college is the be all end all and forms their argument over the fact that they believe community college is the way to go. The other side of the argument is that of the actual school that is dealing with the actual transfer students because it is their title that suffers if they do not have students succeeding. The four year schools have validation that for some, community colleges are not beneficial but for others they are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is good, but there may be other ways of framing your questions in the end to arrive at more useful arguments. From a student perspective (which students like yourself will naturally consider first), the question is whether or not "two years of community college as a stepping stone to a four year degree" is a good path toward success. How have some students managed to navigate the pitfalls inherent to that path and make it work for them? What do students need to know in order to make the stepping stone model work?
ReplyDeleteBut what other perspectives are possible? How would a different perspective change your audience, your questions, and your focus?
For example, consider the situation of someone in NJ government who is trying to expand access so that more students in NJ go to college and complete four year degrees. Should government be promoting the "community college as stepping stone" model or not? Is it an effective model currently? Does it save the state money or give them more bang for their buck? Is that model boosting college graduation rates -- especially four-year graduation rates? Or do you need to push for some reforms to the system to make that model work better for students?
Similarly, consider the situation of a community college administrator faced with a rising number of students who see community colleges as stepping stones to four year degrees. That administrator might ask whether the system is really preparing "stepping stone students" well for success along that path or if some things need to be reformed. Perhaps community colleges have been too focused on the lower end students or those interested in careers right out of a two-year program. Perhaps a "four year track" or honors program needs to be created, expanded, or reformed to help these stepping stone students to succeed.
Adjusting your perspective on the project from a student-centered one to an administrator-centered one makes it more possible to imagine change at a structural level rather than simply at the level of choices available to individual students. After all, if the stepping stone model is failing students, then it is not possible for them to make it succeed because it is not working for anyone. And how are students supposed to reform the system? Would students be expected to push for more rigorous standards and expectations in order to prepare them for four-year colleges, for example? Not likely. Many students prefer the two-year to four-year route because they recognize it is not only cheaper but easier -- but that easiness comes with a price. Only an administrator or someone in government would or could argue for those structural changes to the system.
Imagine yourself an administrator or government official -- someone addressing not just students but other administrators or government officials and trying to form a consensus for concerted action to improve the stepping stone model. I think that change in perspective will help you do more in your paper than you are currently doing.
See also my comments on Blog #9, added later. I found an interesting source.
ReplyDelete