Brown approves community college bachelor’s degrees
By Alexei Koseff, Sacramento Bee
In what could portend a monumental shift in public higher education in California, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Sunday that will allow up to 15 community colleges to launch bachelor’s degrees programs in vocational fields.
While 21 other states offer community college baccalaureates, California’s colleges have traditionally been the domain of transfer students and career technical education, granting two-year associate degrees, as established more than fifty years ago in the Master Plan for Higher Education. Senate Bill 850 will allow colleges to experiment with four-year degrees. The pilot program is set to begin no later than the 2017-18 academic year and end in 2024.
In recent years, advocates have argued that growing industry demand for more educated workers in fields such as dental hygiene and automotive technology could be met by expanding existing programs at community colleges.
“In recent years, advocates have argued that growing industry demand for more educated workers in fields such as dental hygiene and automotive technology could be met by expanding existing programs at community colleges.” Yep.
I’m glad Brown signed SB850. This is a good thing.
Spouse – 4-mer-usmc
Mesaure F will benefit Tahoe.
This is great news! Can’t wait to vote in November.
Fifteen Community Colleges will be able to participate? In a state with 112 Community Colleges it is unlikely that ours would be one of them, IMHO.
The 15 colleges selected will be running a pilot program. The program can then be extended to the entire CC system. Even if not selected as a pilot campus, LTCC is moving forward with initiatives that will help students earn a 4-year degree. They were recently selected as one of only 8 (yes, all 112 were eligible) campuses to be a part of a statewide Online Education Intiative. In addition, there are plans for a University Center which would enable LTCC to host programs like UC or CSU extension. LTCC is getting well deserved positive attention from the Chancellor’s Office, it should from the community as well.
Broaderveiw you seem to have an insiders knowledge on what is happening at the college. Can you describe what kind of really active marketing plan they have to increased enrollmentt from out of area students.Are they visiting high schools in areas that havein impacked community colleges? How many sq ft are they adding? Because at 100 million we should be getting 250k sq ft.
reloman, Why is every single thing in rightwing world reduced to profit and loss and based on things like volatile current real estate sq. footage terms?
Some things in this world are more important than a citizen’s personal bottom line. Believe it or not.
reloman, I believe the information is available online on the college’s website. They also just did two informational events with the two chambers in town. Next time they do one it would be good to attend.
reloman –
Kevin Murphy and LeanForward are right. This is all publicly available information from their website and from the community college Chancellor’s office. I don’t have any insider info. I have worked at another CA community college in the past, hence why I pay attention to what’s happening in the system as a whole.
In terms of what the specific plans are for the Bond Measure, all that information is available on LTCC’s website. I’ve looked at the plans in detail, and your estimate of 250k sqft is inaccurate. This isn’t for new construction alone, it is also for maintenance and upgrades on existing buildings – such as one of the listed projects for modernizing the science facilities.
http://www.ltcc.edu/web/ltcc/measuref
Kin, why do all left liberals attack and want to spend without looking prudently at what we are purchasing. you seem to be saying spend to spend. I fully realise that a good community college helps a community in many ways. That being said we should never rubber stamp things as a knee jerk reaction just because a bond says education. It worries me that the school is unable to maintain its relatively new facilities and must go to a bond issue to pay those costs. with the new buildings as well as the current buildings what is the plan to cover regular ongoing maintaince cost? Will we have to come to the taxpayers again in 25 years for another bond for repairs? I would feel more comfortable if they would show us a well thought out plan on how they will recruit out of area students. As you all know the more students we have , the more money the state gives which could be used for maintaince.
I looked at a building cost estimate for colleges and using the highest area cost(New York City) it cost $260 a ft to build the most expensive college building. At that rate it would cost 65 million to build 250 sq ft, leaving 35 million left over for everything else. I excluded 10 million whictake be taken over by fees and commissions. We need to be smart on how we spend our money, not fancy.
It’s ironic that many who push environmental sustainabilty, aren’t also concerned about fiscal sustainability.
Our City has made commitments they can’t sustain. And they keep coming back to the taxpayer to bail them out. We need to make sure the same doesn’t happen with our Community College!
‘It’s ironic that many who push environmental sustainabilty, aren’t also concerned about fiscal sustainability.’
That statement is not based in reality.
Yes it is based in reality just on the Measure F articles on this site.
Here it’s been conceded by an LTCC Board Member that buildings were built and weren’t sufficiently maintained. With the board member stating that lack of funds was the cause, hence the partial need for the bond.
Yet, they want to build even more buildings? When the cost, need, supposed intended result questioned, do the questions get answered? No.
Rather, people go after those concerned, saying they’re not for education, or schools, or youth.
Besides environmental sustainability, we need to be concerned about fiscal sustainability in general, and with this bond measure.
Define many
Good point, ‘many’ is used as a weasel word to give them space to back pedal. In that statement Parker was making a generalization about people who support environmental sustainability. From my experience the importance of economic sustainability is recognized by the vast majority of people who recognize environmental sustainability. If I had to quantify that, it would be 1 sigma. I would define many to be right around that too. 3 can be many if the sample is 5, but not when the sample is 10. Maybe they heard from 4 people who prove their case, but those 4 people were dumb and do not represent the group. Or (most likely) Parker is crippled by confirmation bias and can only remember the examples that support their politics.
The point is, ‘many’ is not enough to make their generalization legitimate.
And I would really like to hear the case for how the topic of Measure F is such a good case study. Starting with why its primary purpose is environmental sustainability.
‘Kin, why do all left liberals attack and want to spend without looking prudently at what we are purchasing.’
relo you are even worse. You are just making up a term that seems distinctive, but is really means ‘people you disagree with’. Dawg does that a lot.
Beat that straw man.
Many of the arguments from conservatives contain logical fallacies.
Many meaning >75%
Relo & Cosa,
Get a dictionary. You can even go online now to look up words. Cosa, if you wouldn’t name call, more people would listen to what you have to say.
But so it’s clear, I didn’t say there was anything wrong with environmental sustainability.
Now for the topic at hand. It would be great if Measure F leads to increased enrollment. And new facilities always sound great. But what if enrollment doesn’t increase? And so there’s not just money in Measure F to build new things, there’s money to maintain them? Because apparently there wasn’t money allocated to maintain the original LTCC structures?
By no defination does many even have to be a majority, as a matter of fact the way it was written, it would not mean a majority.
And as you mant times seem to do is take my sentence out of context vs what i was replying to, this writer was generalizing what the right wing world os like, though instead of all i should have said many. Btw your comment about what Parker said not being based in reality was illogical and and unproven scientific fact. Many is an indefinate number, it could be 10 to a million. One of the benefits that is being prompted by the people behind this measure is the enviromental sustanability. But i can see that you just wish to argue the same strawman arguements you always put up. So i believe i will just laugh and move on with my life,
Heidi Hill Drum from the Tahoe Prosperity Center spoke at the September 2 City Council meeting and gave the following quote from Mark Twain:
“Everyone loves progress but no one likes change.”
By doing nothing, nothing changes. Making improvements requires taking an action and that often takes courage and risk, but without it you’re guaranteed mediocrity or less.
Spouse – 4-mer-usmc
Well said spouse
relo, Parker used many as a weasel word, so that they (or you) can make rambling excuses.
‘ Many is an indefinate number, it could be 10 to a million. ‘
Obviously you missed my whole point on sample size and representation.
‘ But i can see that you just wish to argue the same strawman arguements you always put up. ‘
You know that statement is complete BS.
And ironically, a strawman.
Beat that straw man.