Social stupidity in college funding

Currently, the state of California funds community colleges through a dysfunctional system which punishes colleges for offering more expensive—but crucial—courses that will train the next generation of environmentally-sensitive professional technicians.

For example, take an automotive technology class at ARC. Such a class requires the purchasing and use of expensive computer equipment, twelve powerful hydraulic lifts costing over $3,000 each, vehicles and parts for hands-on training, etc.—in addition to state-of-the-art automotive lab rooms, a lecture room, a professor and a chalkboard. Oh, and don't forget the additional liability coming from students using dangerous machinery in a lab.

On the other hand, a math class needs a room, a professor and a chalkboard.

But does the state give extra funds to help a college offer the more expensive Auto Tech class that requires extra funds to operate?

No.

Does this make sense?

It didn't make sense for Sierra College, who almost voted to send its expensive auto tech program into extinction. Why? Financially, the state offers no incentive for community colleges to continue offering courses which cost more to operate than core classes like English or math.

The current funding system works like this: Let's say 30 ARC students each took a full course load of auto tech classes each semester, for one year— in 2008, the college would have received $5,891 per Full Time Equivalent student that year: a total of $176,730.

However, if these same 30 ARC students decided to take the same amount of units, but instead take math classes, the college would receive the same amount from the state: $176,730.

Therefore, a college deciding to offer an auto tech class, does so at a financial loss. In a sense, it is punished for offering an essential course, due to its being burdened with added expense, without added funding.

So, a college in a financial crisis—like they all are right now—would find it to be fiscally prudent to cut courses that are more expensive for them to offer. However, such a college would be socially stupid.

Cutting courses like auto tech, green tech and other programs that require more expense to offer, harms society in the long run, as the new workforce would be untrained to take on these jobs that maintain our infrastructure.

So why does state funding reward social irresponsibility?

Who knows? Perhaps they didn't get a good education…