Excellent post, but doesn't go quite far enough.

"...redistributive payouts might be making things worse for those on the receiving end."

Take the "might" out, these payouts DO make things worse for the majority of those on the receiving end. When the government states it will pay for certain activities, more of those activities occur. Pay for illegimate children, we get more illegimate children. Pay for a disfunctional education system, we get a bigger disfunctional education system & etc. Why aren't the thinking behind this post and the examples above not the key talking points for the Republicans in the deficit debate? Quite simply, why don't we ask the American people "has the ever burgeoning social "investment" been good for the country and if so, how?"

While I am generally sympathetic to your position, we must understand the twofold nature of the community college. First: many people use it as an inexpensive first two years, prior to moving on to a four year degree. Second: many people (including myself) who already have degrees, take classes in order to gain expertise in areas having nothing to do with their degrees, but may help them in their businesses. I taught classes, for a time, at Long Beach City College, in which hardly any of the students were working toward a degree. Obviously, in situations like that, you would not expect high graduation percentages.

I'm reminded that democracy works only until a majority of voters realize they can screw the minority.

"failing public schools like nearby Fresno City College, where yesterday it was announced that 70 percent of students (the majority of them on some sort of federal and state loan support) fail to receive a two-year AA degree"

1. Many students attending 2-year colleges transfer to 4 year schools without bothering to get the relatively worthless AA degree (AA is a 2-year "liberal arts" degree, not a technical degree), so the 70 percent figure is very deceptive.

2. Private for-profit schools (like Phoenix, and Cappella) have even more dismal graduation rates, and students there recieve roughly equal federal and state loan and grant support, and these students have radically higher default rates on the loans.

So the problem isn't with "public schools," but with federal hand-outs, whether to public or private institutions.

I taught at a California community college (one of the primo ones) for some years, but had previously been in private industry (and owned my own business, too). Factoid: I refused to join the faculty union!

While teaching (if one can call it that), I often noted that most of my students did not belong there, and I didn't hesitate to mention it to the career faculty. Understand that I taught "gen-ed" science, which students only took because they had to take a science of some sort, or because the textbook had lots of color pictures. I am definitely not joking.

But community colleges also serve students who are not there to get any sort of degree, not even an A.A. Instead, they are there to take a few computer classes because they need the training for routine office jobs, and one can't get such training on the job, and prospective employers are not in a position to believe someone who claims to be self-trained (especially if a grievance applicant can show some college credits).

It turns out that in many cases, the student can get aid by being "full time" and enrolled in a degree program, or perhaps health coverage extended through parents' plan, or something like that. So, there's a strong incentive to claim to be majoring in XYZ for a degree (or transfer), when all the student wants is some useful training. Then, drop out. Private establishments can provide such job-focused training, but at much higher costs and, in some cases, less credence.

Incidentally, I discovered that students with any sort of goal in life ("wants to be an actor") did adequately well in my gen-ed science. It's just that there were so many merely putting in the time, as an alternative to being unemployed, or for the benefits.